Category: blaze media

On a recent episode of “Unashamed,” the Robertson brothers and Zach Dasher dove headfirst into the infamous P-word.

Pornography has become an epidemic that enslaves millions and millions of people, most often boys and men. While it’s technically been around for millennia, the digital age has brought porn into the mainstream and made it nearly impossible to avoid. It’s on our televisions; it’s on our phones; even artificial intelligence has fused with the industry in ways that can only be described as sick and depraved.

Today, many boys are exposed to porn long before they hit puberty.

Al, who grew up in an era where pornography was still confined to magazines, says he first encountered it at a “very young” age — “probably 7 or 8 years old” — while living next door to the bar Phil owned and operated before his radical conversion to Christianity. This early exposure caused Al to struggle for years, even into his marriage.

Zach Dasher has a similar story. When he was just 11 years old, his friend’s older brother put on an adult movie with the intention of introducing the younger boys to pornography. Years later, Zach learned from renowned Christian counselor Dr. Trent Langhofer that exposure to pornography before puberty has “the same effect on you as being sexually molested.”

“It made a lot of sense to me because that was an imprint in me that I dealt with for years. … I think that that early exposure probably set me on a trajectory of sin for many years,” he says.

Jase, who was lucky enough to avoid exposure in his early years, says that he sees pornography as an issue that roots back to creation. God created Adam and said, “It’s not good for the man to be alone,” so out of His kindness, He created Eve and subsequently marriage and sex. Pornography, however, is a perversion of God’s good design.

Not only does it isolate man, which God already said wasn’t good, it also taints his view of reality, and harms his relationships, especially the one with his wife, Jase explains.

Al says something that helped him think differently about pornography was having his own daughters and wrestling with the reality that every girl on a magazine page or a screen is not only someone’s daughter but also an image bearer of God. “You start thinking like Jesus thinks,” he says.

Zach found freedom in not just learning the truth but by taking action. Accountability was key in helping him break the cycle. Confession is the first step, he says, and if you’re married, it needs to be to your wife. “Now you’ve got skin in the game,” he says.

“And then after the confession, you have to find new rhythms … we are what we consume.”

“If you consume something different, then you will become something different. You will worship what you behold. And so if you’re beholding entertainment, then that’s what you will eventually begin to worship,” he warns.

Freedom is “truth coupled with discipline.”

To hear more of the panel’s honest conversation, watch the episode above.

Want more from the Robertsons?

To enjoy more on God, guns, ducks, and inspiring stories of faith and family, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Unashamed, Al robertson, Jase robertson, Zach dasher, Robertson family, Pornography addiction, Pornography effects on marriage, Blazetv, Blaze media, Christianity 

History doesn’t just move forward — it echoes. Karl Marx once said history repeats itself, “first as tragedy, second as farce.” He meant it as a jab at 19th-century France, where Napoleon’s nephew attempted to replicate his uncle’s revolutionary drama not on the battlefield but rather through bureaucratic spectacle. Nevertheless, Marx’s insight fits modern America. Our cycles of unrest and outrage have become predictable theater — each act beginning with moral panic and ending in absurdity.

The summer of 2020 was a national trauma. The killing of George Floyd was a tragedy that radicals turned into revolution. Riots swept through more than 2,000 cities, torching businesses, destroying neighborhoods, and leaving dozens dead. Egged on by the race-baiting activists at Black Lives Matter, mobs looted stores, assaulted police, and terrorized communities.

The line between tragedy and farce is thinner than ever — and this time, we can’t afford to play the fool.

Media outlets downplayed the carnage as “fiery but mostly peaceful.” Political leaders joined the chorus, afraid to confront the mob. Corporate America rushed to signal its virtue by taking the knee, pouring billions into “racial equity” schemes that enriched activists but divided the country.

The real tragedy wasn’t just the damage — it was the betrayal. Spineless mayors and governors surrendered their cities. Police were handcuffed, budgets gutted, and criminals emboldened. The riots hollowed out public trust, replacing civic order with cultural resentment. America’s guardians became scapegoats, and justice itself became negotiable.

From riot to parody

Five years on, the rebellion has devolved into a pathetic sideshow. Antifa’s latest “resistance” — a handful of masked agitators harassing Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents as they carry out long-overdue deportations — feels less like revolution and more like performance art.

Their vandalism is designed for TikTok, not for change: laser pointers at officers, graffiti on walls, choreographed scuffles for social media. It’s a boutique insurgency — staged in deep-blue enclaves, broadcast for dopamine hits, and forgotten the next day.

The chaos of 2020 burned cities. The tantrums of 2025 barely dent a precinct wall. The tragedy has become farce.

Still, both movements spring from the same poisoned root: a left-wing ideology that despises America’s foundations. BLM targeted police as enforcers of “white supremacy.” Antifa brands border agents as fascists for upholding immigration law.

Both rely on the same tactics — decentralized mobs, anonymous online organizing, and emotional manipulation amplified by social media. Both seek power through grievance, not through persuasion. And both reveal how progressive rage, unmoored from reality, becomes self-parody.

In 2020, rioters burned precincts and seized city blocks. They demanded “defund the police” and got it — along with record crime rates and broken neighborhoods. In 2025, their heirs spray-paint slogans and livestream tantrums. Their only victory is visibility.

The digital theater of rage

Social media turned riots into content. In 2020, doctored clips of “police brutality” fueled nationwide hysteria, empowered anti-cop lunatics, and enriched grifters. Today, the same algorithms push Antifa’s posturing, turning vandalism into viral spectacle.

These platforms profit from outrage. They amplify emotion, suppress context, and reward hysteria. The result is a feedback loop of performative politics — activism as cosplay.

After years of indulgence, government crackdowns have finally returned. ICE operates under firm executive backing. Local police departments no longer hesitate to enforce the law. The radicals, once protected, now find themselves exposed and outmatched.

But even as law enforcement regains its footing, the left’s playbook remains unchanged. The grievances are repackaged, the slogans recycled, the media coverage predictable. It’s cultural Marxism with a TikTok filter — ideology as entertainment.

Farce doesn’t mean harmless. Every protest turned stunt still corrodes civic life. Each viral act of defiance feeds distrust in law, borders, and the rule of order itself.

The radicals thrive on illusion: fake oppression, fake urgency, fake rebellion. Meanwhile, real Americans bear the cost — higher crime, divided communities, and institutions too timid to defend themselves.

RELATED: The left’s costume party: Virtue signaling as performance art

Photo by serazetdinov via Getty Images

The lesson we refuse to learn

The tragedy of 2020 proved that surrendering to the mob invites ruin. The farce of 2025 shows that ridicule alone isn’t enough to defeat it. Both demand resolve — the courage to confront lies, restore order, and defend the institutions that safeguard freedom.

History doesn’t stop repeating itself; it stops being repeated. Whether America ends this cycle depends on whether its citizens choose firmness over fear, enforcement over appeasement, and truth over spectacle.

Enough with the doctored outrage porn. The burning question is whether we’ll tolerate this clown show recycling into catastrophe or crush it with resolve that honors real American values.

The line between tragedy and farce is thinner than ever — and this time, we can’t afford to play the fool.

​Opinion & analysis, Opinion, Riot, Riots, Antifa, Activism, Antifascism, Revolition, George floyd, George floyd protests, George floyd riots, Karl marx, History, Tragedy, Farce, Leftism, Ice raids, Portland, Black lives matter 

Harvard University’s Office of Undergraduate Education released a 25-page report on Monday revealing that roughly 60% of the grades dished out in undergraduate classes are As. This is apparently not a signal that the students are necessarily better or smarter than past cohorts but rather that Harvard As are now easier to come by.

According to the report, authored by the school’s dean of undergraduate education Amanda Claybaugh and reviewed by the Harvard Crimson, the proportion of students receiving A grades since 2015 has risen by 20 percentage points.

‘If that standard is raised even more, it’s unrealistic to assume that people will enjoy their classes.’

Whereas at the time of graduation, the median grade point average for the class of 2015 was 3.64, it was 3.83 for the class of 2025 — and the Harvard GPA has been an A since the 2016-2017 academic year.

“Nearly all faculty expressed serious concern,” wrote Claybaugh. “They perceive there to be a misalignment between the grades awarded and the quality of student work.”

Citing responses from faculty and students, the report revealed that the specific functions of grading — motivating students, indicating mastery of subject matter, and separating the wheat from the chaff — are not being fulfilled.

RELATED: Harvard posts deficit of over $110 million as funding feud with Trump continues to sting

Photo by Zhu Ziyu/VCG via Getty Images

“In the view of faculty, grades currently distinguish between work that meets expectations or fails to meet expectations, but beyond that grades don’t distinguish much at all,” said the report. “‘Students know that an ‘A’ can be awarded,’ one faculty member observed, ‘for anything from outstanding work to reasonably satisfactory work. It’s a farce.'”

Claybaugh acknowledged that grades can serve as a useful and transparent way to “distinguish the strongest student work for the purposes of honors, prizes, and applications to professional and graduate schools.” However, since As are now handed out like candy and many students have identical GPAs, prizes and other benefits must now be dispensed on the basis of less objective factors, which “risks introducing bias and inconsistency into the process,” suggested the dean.

The report noted further that Harvard University’s current grading practices “are not only undermining the functions of grading; they are also damaging the academic culture of the College more generally” by constraining student choice, exacerbating stress, and “hollowing out academics.”

Steven McGuire, a fellow at the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, highlighted the admission in the report that Harvard owes much of its current crisis to its coddling of unprepared students.

“For the past decade or so, the College has been exhorting faculty to remember that some students arrive less prepared for college than others, that some are struggling with difficult family situations or other challenges, that many are struggling with imposter syndrome — and nearly all are suffering from stress,” said the report.

“Unsure how best to support their students, many have simply become more lenient. Requirements were relaxed, and grades were raised, particularly in the year of remote instruction,” continued the report. “This leniency, while well-intentioned, has had pernicious effects.”

The new report is hardly the first time the school has suggested that Harvard undergraduate students tend to be coddled, intellectually fragile, ideologically rigid, and slothful.

Citing faculty feedback, Harvard’s Classroom Social Compact Committee indicated in a January report that undergraduate students “have rising expectations for high grades, but falling expectations for effort”; often don’t attend class; frequently don’t do many of the assigned readings; seek out easy courses; and in some cases are “uncomfortable with curricular content that is not aligned with the student’s moral framework.”

The January report noted further that “some teaching fellows grade too easily because they fear negative student feedback.”

Claybaugh’s grade inflation report has reportedly prompted complaints and whining this week from students.

Among the dozens of students who objected to the report and its findings was Sophie Chumburidze, who told the Harvard Crimson, “The whole entire day, I was crying.”

“I skipped classes on Monday, and I was just sobbing in bed because I felt like I try so hard in my classes, and my grades aren’t even the best,” said Chumburidze. “It just felt soul-crushing.”

Kayta Aronson told the Crimson that higher standards could adversely impact students’ health.

“It makes me rethink my decision to come to the school,” said Aronson. “I killed myself all throughout high school to try and get into this school. I was looking forward to being fulfilled by my studies now, rather than being killed by them.”

Zahra Rohaninejad suggested that raising standards might sap the enjoyment out of the Harvard experience.

“I can’t reach my maximum level of enjoyment just learning the material because I’m so anxious about the midterm, so anxious about the papers, and because I know it’s so harshly graded,” said Rohaninejad. “If that standard is raised even more, it’s unrealistic to assume that people will enjoy their classes.”

The student paper indicated the university did not respond to its request for comment.

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

​Academics, Academia, School, College, University, Coddled, Coddling, Student, Students, Harvard, Woke, Politics 

The New York Times recently profiled Scott Jacqmein, an actor from Dallas who sold his likeness to TikTok for $750 and a free trip to the Bay Area. He hasn’t landed any TV shows, movies, or commercials, but his AI-generated likeness has — a virtual version of Jacqmein is now “acting” in countless ads on TikTok. As the Times put it, Jacqmein “fields one or two texts a week from acquaintances and friends who are pretty sure they have seen him pitching a peculiar range of businesses on TikTok.”

Now, Jacqmein “has regrets.” But why? He consented to sell his likeness. His image isn’t being used illegally. He wanted to act, and now — at least digitally — he’s acting. His regrets seem less about ethics and more about economics.

The more perfect the imitation, the greater the lie. What people crave isn’t flawless illusion — it’s authenticity.

Times reporter Sapna Maheshwari suggests as much. Her story centers on the lack of royalties and legal protections for people like Jacqmein.

She also raises moral concerns, citing examples where digital avatars were used to promote objectionable products or deliver offensive messages. In one case, Jacqmein’s AI double pitched a “male performance supplement.” In another, a TikTok employee allegedly unleashed AI avatars reciting passages from Hitler’s “Mein Kampf.” TikTok removed the tool that made the videos possible after CNN brought the story to light.

When faces become property

These incidents blur into a larger problem — the same one raised by deepfakes. In recent months, digital impostors have mimicked public figures from Bishop Robert Barron to the pope. The Vatican itself has had to denounce fake homilies generated in the likeness of Leo XIV. Such fabrications can mislead, defame, or humiliate.

But the deepest problem with digital avatars isn’t that they deceive. It’s that they aren’t real.

Even if Jacqmein were paid handsomely and religious figures embraced synthetic preaching as legitimate evangelism, something about the whole enterprise would remain wrong. Selling one’s likeness is a transaction of the soul. It’s unsettling because it treats what’s uniquely human — voice, gesture, and presence — as property to be cloned and sold.

When a person licenses his “digital twin,” he doesn’t just part with data. He commodifies identity itself. The actor’s expressions, tone, and mannerisms become a bundle of intellectual property. Someone else owns them now.

That’s why audiences instinctively recoil at watching AI puppets masquerade and mimic people. Even if the illusion is technically impressive, it feels hollow. A digital replica can’t evoke the same moral or emotional response as a real human being.

Selling the soul

This isn’t a new theme in art or philosophy. In a classic “Simpsons” episode, Bart sells his soul to his pal Milhouse for $5 and soon feels hollow, haunted by nightmares, convinced he’s lost something essential. The joke carries a metaphysical truth: When we surrender what defines us as human — even symbolically — we suffer a real loss.

For those who believe in an immortal soul, as Jesuit philosopher Robert Spitzer argues in “Science at the Doorstep to God,” this loss is more than psychological. To sell one’s likeness is to treat the image of the divine within as a market commodity. The transaction might seem trivial — a harmless digital contract — but the symbolism runs deep.

Oscar Wilde captured this inversion of morality in “The Picture of Dorian Gray.” His protagonist stays eternally young while his portrait, the mirror of his soul, decays. In our digital age, the roles are reversed: The AI avatar remains young and flawless while the human model ages, forgotten and spiritually diminished.

Jacqmein can’t destroy his portrait. It’s contractually owned by someone else. If he wants to stop his digital self from hawking supplements or energy drinks, he’ll need lawyers — and he’ll probably lose. He’s condemned to watch his AI double enjoy a flourishing career while he struggles to pay rent. The scenario reads like a lost episode of “Black Mirror” — a man trapped in a parody of his own success. (In fact, “The Waldo Moment” and “Hang the DJ” come close to this.)

RELATED: Cybernetics promised a merger of human and computer. Then why do we feel so out of the loop?

Photo by imaginima via Getty Images

The moral exit

The conventional answer to this dilemma is regulation: copyright reforms, consent standards, watermarking requirements. But the real solution begins with refusal. Actors shouldn’t sell their avatars. Consumers shouldn’t support platforms that replace people with synthetic ghosts.

If TikTok and other media giants populate their feeds with digital clones, users should boycott them and demand “fair-trade human content.” Just as conscientious shoppers insist on buying ethically sourced goods, viewers should insist on art and advertising made by living, breathing humans.

Tech evangelists argue that AI avatars will soon become indistinguishable from the people they’re modeled on. But that misses the point. The more perfect the imitation, the greater the lie. What people crave isn’t flawless illusion — it’s authenticity. They want to see imperfection, effort, and presence. They want to see life.

If we surrender that, we’ll lose something far more valuable than any acting career or TikTok deal. We’ll lose the very thing that makes us human.

​Opinion & analysis, Opinion, Tiktok, Hollywood, Artificial intelligence, License, Likeness, Actors, Artists, Boycott, Soul, The simpsons, Bart simpson, Scott jacqmein, Adolf hitler, Mein kampf, Entertainment, Pope leo xiv, Robert barron, Robert spitzer, Black mirror, Copyright, Fair-trade human content, Faith 

Across the country, Americans have begun realizing they have a gluten sensitivity — but other countries don’t have the same issue. And according to Christian homesteader Michelle Visser, it’s not the fault of bread, but rather, how it’s made in America.

“Talking about other countries, back when we were adding into our flour and enriching it, other countries didn’t do that. In fact, in Italy, they had a pellagra outbreak around the same time that we were dealing with it here, but they responded completely different in little towns in Italy,” Visser tells BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey.

“They literally built communal ovens, bread ovens, and they encouraged them to use good grains, which had not gone through the green revolution of our country … and make whole wheat bread,” she explains.

“They knew that it was related to folate, and they knew it was dietary, and they said, ‘What can we do? We have in these small towns a lot of poor people who can’t necessarily afford good food. So one thing is, let’s at least give them the equipment to make the bread,’” she continues.

And the result of this, Visser explains, was wiping out pellagra — which was attributed to spoiled bread and polenta.

“So do you think gluten is unfairly demonized?” Stuckey asks.

“I think it is,” Visser says, using Norman Borlaug, the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970, as an example of being focused on the wrong issue when it comes to gluten.

“He had figured out how to manipulate wheat to give it a higher yield and to just simply grow more wheat for your buck. And while there’s definite advantages to understanding plant science, unfortunately, every time that we genetically change or we breed certain characteristics into any of our food, we are losing some nutrition,” she tells Stuckey.

“When they started milling it with the steel mills, they went from 20 barrels of flour a day to 500 barrels of flour a day with no extra energy, no extra expense. So there’s definitely money involved in the whole story is what I’m saying,” she explains.

“This bread that has been stripped of the good stuff, inserted with the synthetic stuff, that is maybe what’s causing the problems, especially in America,” Stuckey comments, surprised.

“Yeah,” Vasser confirms, noting that we’ve also added more protein into modern-day wheat, which has created a “franken-wheat.”

And then on top of what already is “franken-wheat,” wheat manufacturers have begun using pesticides and herbicides.

“If you are not buying organic flour, glyphosate is in trace amounts in your flour. It’s just, it’s there … if we are exposing our gut to glyphosate, we are killing the good bacteria. We’ve had gut problems in this country for many decades … and I think a lot of it has to do with this glyphosate in our flour.”

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Video phone, Upload, Camera phone, Free, Video, Sharing, Youtube.com, Relatable with allie beth stuckey, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze originals, Franken wheat, American bread, Gluten, Gluten insensitivity, Gluten sensitivity, Gluten free, Glyphosate, Allie beth stukey, Relatable 

A family in Toledo, Ohio, got a most unwelcome visitor Saturday afternoon — a male they didn’t know who allegedly opened their front door and announced to a young daughter that he was a police officer.

“This guy came through the back alley, came to the front door, and he was trying to open the entrance,” Steven Aranda told WTVG-TV of the frightening encounter. “And my little daughter said, ‘What are you doing?’ She said, ‘You don’t belong here,’ and then he said he was a Toledo cop.”

‘I threw him down on the ground — slammed him on the concrete and beat him up.’

Charging documents indicated that Parker Jackson, 33, claimed he was a police officer and needed to check on the children in the home, the station said.

Aranda told WTVG Jackson didn’t look like a police officer, and a Toledo Police report Blaze News obtained indicated that Jackson provided no identification backing up his claim that he was a cop.

The station said Aranda was concerned about protecting his children and took matters into his own hands.

‘I snatched his a*s up, and I threw him down on the ground — slammed him on the concrete and beat him up,” Aranda told WTVG. “I pinned him down until the cops got here.”

Indeed, Jackson’s arrest photo shows him with a bloody, swollen lip and a cut above his eye.

The police report also said Jackson was showing “visible symptoms of intoxication” by the time officers arrived. In fact, the report added that Jackson appeared to have been carrying several opened and unopened cans of Milwaukee’s Best Ice beer at the time of his arrest. The report also said Jackson acknowledged opening the home’s front door and claiming to be a police officer.

RELATED: Dad tells cops he caught a rideshare driver sexually assaulting his daughter. So he did what dads do.

Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

Jackson pleaded not guilty to charges of aggravated trespassing, inducing panic, and impersonating a police officer, WTVG reported, adding that a judge ordered Jackson to stay away from the family and set his bond at $1,500.

Aranda told the station his four children were shaken by the incident.

“The kids were kind of scared a little bit ’cause, you know, they ain’t been playing outside now in the past few days because you can’t trust nobody no more,” he noted to WTVG. “Watch out for your kids where they play at and their surroundings.”

You can watch the video of Aranda’s interview with WTVG here.

Jackson on Friday was still behind bars at Lucas County Jail, officials told Blaze News.

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

​Crime thwarted, Lucas county sheriff’s office, Ohio, Toledo, Intruder, Father, Physical attack, Self-defense, Protecting family, Home intruder, Impersonating police officer, Crime 

On most days, the creek that runs behind our home in Montana looks like something out of a painting. The water tumbles over slick stones, swirls beneath the wooden bridge, and flashes like glass in the sunlight as it winds through the trees.

On hot afternoons, I take off my boots and stand in it awhile, letting the cold mountain water swirl around my feet. Even in August, it stays clear and shockingly cold — refreshing on hot, dusty feet. It looks so pure and inviting that you’d think you could cup your hands and drink from it.

The world’s water might soothe for a moment, but it can’t sustain. Only Christ, the living water, can cleanse, restore, and refresh a parched heart.

Yet I know better.

While helping a rancher move some cattle across the property, a few of them wandered down into that same creek. They lingered there, swishing tails and doing what cows do. The water still looked clear from a distance, but you certainly wouldn’t drink from it. Even a Supreme Court justice wouldn’t need a biologist to figure that out.

The water in that creek started high in the mountains, clean and cold. It was once pure, but animals do what animals do. People, though, take it further. We pollute on purpose. That’s not instinct; that’s sin.

We talk about free will, and we have it. But left to ourselves, we use it to wreck what was good. The culture isn’t just wandering into the water; it’s content to poison it, and sinners seem to care less about a polluted stream than cows do.

Downstream from belief

We’ve all heard that politics flows downstream from culture. But if you trace that current far enough, you’ll find that culture flows downstream from belief. Whatever people worship, they eventually legislate into law.

Today, we have ceased worshipping God. Instead, we bow before slogans, systems, and grievances that mollify us rather than giving worship to the one to whom it is due. From a distance, it all looks good — flowing with energy, language, and even a sense of virtue. But somewhere upstream, something has wandered into the water — or been poured into it.

Too often, the church is wading downstream, cup in hand, trying to stay “relevant” while drinking what has already been polluted. The poison is sin itself, the moral waste of self-worship that seeps in until it becomes part of the current.

When the church starts drinking downstream, the songs continue, the sermons sound familiar, and the branding shines. But the taste changes. Conviction weakens, holiness becomes optional, and relevance becomes everything. We echo the world’s vocabulary of identity and justice without the foundation of repentance and redemption. The message gets muddied, and we don’t even notice the shift.

And when that happens, the thirstiest suffer first. Those are the ones who come to church desperate for something real.

What really sticks

I’ve spent 40 years as a caregiver, and I’ve learned what real thirst feels like. When you’ve poured yourself out for years, almost any water looks good. You pray for strength, for truth, for something steady, and too often what comes back sounds like marketing. You sit in church and hear, “Claim your victory,” “Speak life,” or, “Step into your blessing,” and you wonder if anyone sees the wreckage you live with. Then, from another pulpit, you hear, “God understands,” “It’s not that bad,” or, “Everyone struggles.”

It sounds compassionate, but it isn’t. It’s corrosion.

The first slick of contamination began with the serpent questioning the Word of God, and all too many pulpits echo that same hiss today. They downplay sin, soften the edges, and serve up messages that keep people comfortable yet captive. They offer sympathy instead of repentance. That’s not grace; that’s decay.

Ornate and large pulpits don’t necessarily mean clean water. Visibility isn’t the same as vision. The purity of the message isn’t measured by the size of the platform of the one delivering it but by how faithfully it points upstream to Christ Himself.

Truth, the real kind, usually starts with one hard word: repent. It’s upstream, and it’s not easy to get there. But that’s where the water runs clean. Downstream, you’ll only find a little contamination, a little compromise, a little manure, and just enough to make you sick.

RELATED: Scripture or slogans — you have to choose

freedom007 via iStock/Getty Images

I’ve tested the various platitudes and slogans in the emergency room, ICU, and dark watches of the night more times than I can count. None of them hold up.

Here’s what does.

Only one water stays pure no matter who steps in it. It’s the same water that met a Samaritan woman at a well. It’s the same water Isaiah promised when he wrote, “With joy you will draw water from the wells of salvation.” That’s the invitation — not just to the church, but to every soul that’s dry and staggering: Walk upstream.

Go upstream

When we drink deeply from that pure spring, holiness stops feeling like a burden and starts feeling like oxygen. It gives clarity instead of confusion, courage instead of compromise.

That’s the call to the church and to every weary heart. Don’t drink what the world has trampled. Don’t settle for water that only looks clean from a distance. Polluted streams can’t quench the thirst of thirsty people.

The world’s water might soothe for a moment, even cool our weary feet, but it can’t sustain us. Only Christ, the living water, can cleanse, restore, and refresh a parched heart.

So go upstream. The source is still pure, and it’s still flowing.

​Opinion & analysis, Faith, Caregiving, Gospel, Purity, Poison, Culture, Politics, Jesus christ, Living water, Christianity, The church 

Leftist policies have gutted Europe, with the U.K. and France serving as prime examples — once proud bastions of Western civilization, now barely recognizable as native cultures are systematically eroded under the guise of unchecked mass migration. Free speech is a relic of the past, crushed by tyrannical censors. Sky-high taxes strangle the working man, and suffocating bureaucratic overreach is the hallmark of these failing socialist regimes.

U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer sits at the helm of Britain’s descent into its dystopian nightmare.

“This is the guy that allowed these gang rapes by Pakistani immigrants of English girls that went on for years,” Mark Levin says, adding that under Starmer, “Crime is through the roof and mostly committed by recent immigrants” who are valued above natives.

England is a picture of what the United States was hurtling toward under Democratic rule. If Donald Trump hadn’t pulled our nation back from the cliff, Levin predicts we would’ve seen “the end” of America.

England needs its own Donald Trump now — a party that can effectively fight tyranny. Levin believes the Tories — the Conservative and Unionist Party — are the answer to Britain’s woes.

The party’s leader, Kemi Badenoch, is a woman Levin deeply respects and admires — a “superstar,” he calls her.

“She is brilliant. She is courageous. She is trying to defend Western culture and principles in Britain — the home of Western culture and principles,” he says.

He then plays a clip from Badenoch’s fiery parliamentary takedown of Keir Starmer’s weak-kneed Israel policy during a Middle East debate on October 14, during which she lambasted Labour’s appeasement of Hamas and vowed unyielding Tory solidarity with Israel’s fight against Islamist terror.

“The response from some in the West — the equivocation, the indulgence in whataboutery, and the drawing of false equivalence — shows how far moral clarity has eroded. And we have got a job to do here at home, Mr. Speaker, to fix this,” she fired.

She went on to praise President Trump for masterminding the Gaza ceasefire and condemned Starmer and his spineless Labour cronies for “rewarding terrorism” by recognizing Palestine sans hostage releases, for making “the wrong decisions time and again” that gutted Britain’s Middle East clout, and for their mealy-mouthed weakness that only emboldens Hamas butchers.

“She is fantastic,” Levin says.

“I hope she becomes prime minister,” he adds.

To hear more of his analysis, watch the clip above.

Want more from Mark Levin?

To enjoy more of “the Great One” — Mark Levin as you’ve never seen him before — subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Levin, Levintv, Mark levin, Europe, Uk, Britain, England, France, Death of the west, Blazetv, Blaze media, Kemi badenoch, Tory party, Keir starmer 

The auto industry just can’t seem to get a break.

Just a few years out from COVID-era supply chain issues, a new computer chip shortage looms — and it’s threatening manufacturers on both sides of the Atlantic.

Germany’s auto industry lobbying group VDA warns that carmakers are days away from having to shut down production — with the crisis possibly spreading beyond Europe to the U.S. within weeks.

Automakers cannot simply switch suppliers overnight; qualifying new chips and redesigning vehicle modules take months.

Here’s the issue: A Dutch chip maker called Nexperia got bought out by a Chinese company called Wingtech. The Trump administration then warned the Dutch that the Chinese were planning to move technology and production out of the Netherlands to China, so the Dutch government seized control of the company in September. China retaliated by prohibiting exports of Nexperia components that are made in China.

Voila: a brand new chip shortage.

Going Dutch

Nexperia may not produce the most advanced semiconductors, but it’s an essential, high-volume provider of automotive chips that control electronic systems in modern vehicles. Without them, automakers cannot assemble cars efficiently.

On September 30, the Dutch government invoked emergency powers to take control of Nexperia, citing concerns about technology transfer to the company’s Chinese parent, Wingtech. This action followed months of U.S. pressure, including adding Wingtech to the U.S. Entity List (thus requiring a special license for an American company wanting to trade with it) and extending export control restrictions to subsidiaries owned at least 50% by China.

Dutch officials described the intervention as a defensive step to protect European technological assets and maintain supply-chain security. While day-to-day operations have been left to the Chinese owners, strategic decisions now fall under government oversight.

China calls

On October 4, China’s Ministry of Commerce issued export controls prohibiting Nexperia China and its subcontractors from exporting certain finished components and sub-assemblies. Automakers immediately expressed concern.

The European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association warned that production could be significantly disrupted. In the U.S., the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, representing nearly all major automakers including General Motors, Ford, Toyota, Volkswagen, and Hyundai, urged a quick resolution.

“If the shipment of automotive chips doesn’t resume — quickly — it’s going to disrupt auto production in the U.S. and many other countries and have a spillover effect in other industries,” said CEO John Bozzella.

Supply-chain sequel

Modern vehicles rely heavily on electronics. Even models without luxury infotainment systems use Nexperia chips for electronic control units, powertrain management, safety systems, and more.

The disruption illustrates the fragility of the global supply chain. Automakers cannot simply switch suppliers overnight; qualifying new chips and redesigning vehicle modules take months. Even a small interruption can cascade, causing production delays, increased costs, or halted assembly lines.

Volkswagen and BMW reported that European production has not yet been impacted but said they were actively evaluating supply risks. In the U.S., exposure grows daily as plants rely on components sourced through European operations or shared supplier networks. Japan and other countries are already preparing for the negative impact.

Chips are down

The disruption could lead to short-term production slowdowns, with car plants in Europe, Japan, Korea, and potentially the U.S. reducing shifts, delaying vehicle launches, or postponing deliveries.

The need to find alternative suppliers, expedite shipping, or re-engineer components will increase costs, potentially raising vehicle prices for consumers.

Automakers are also likely to accelerate supply-chain restructuring, diversifying suppliers, resourcing production domestically, or redesigning vehicles to rely less on single-source components. If chip availability remains constrained, vehicles may arrive with fewer options or higher prices, impacting both buyers and dealers. This will not help a hurting industry.

Slow learners?

The Nexperia dispute highlights a growing reality: Automakers are navigating a geopolitical minefield. Governments increasingly treat technology and component supply as strategic assets, and decisions made halfway across the world can ripple through production lines almost instantly. It seems like the last chip shortage didn’t teach too many lessons.

Automakers must now consider geopolitical risk in procurement decisions, diversify suppliers, and maintain contingency stock. For consumers, vehicle availability, pricing, and features can be affected by forces far beyond local dealerships. Just like the last chip shortage, dealers raised prices to offset lack of supply and high demand.

In a world where electronics are as essential to cars as engines, supply-chain resilience is no longer optional — it’s critical. The Nexperia dispute is a warning sign, and for the auto industry, the stakes could not be higher.

​Align cars 

Law enforcement is investigating an explosion at Harvard University medical school building that appeared to be “intentional,” according to multiple reports.

A police officer responded at 2:48 a.m. on Saturday after a fire alarm was activated in the Goldenson building.

The officer reported seeing two people fleeing the scene before locating a fire on the building’s fourth floor where there appeared to be an “intentional” explosion. The officer tried to approach and the pair before entering the building.

RELATED: ‘Jihadi’ terror attack planned for Halloween weekend leads to multiple arrests, FBI says

Photo by Erica Denhoff/Icon Sportswire via Getty Images

No injuries were reported and the Boston police swept the building for “any additional devices” but found none.

The FBI also confirmed that they are assisting local law enforcement with the investigation.

This is a developing story and will be updated.

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

​Harvard, Harvard medical school, Fbi, Fbi investigation, Arson, Explosion, College campus, Politics 

In 2018, I was canvassing for a Republican candidate in a local race here in Portland, Oregon. A bunch of us were knocking on doors in the suburbs, seeking out Republicans by using data printouts that indicated which households were aligned with which party.

But those printouts were not always correct. People had moved. Or there were split households. Sometimes the homeowners had changed parties.

In the early 1900s, the color red was the color of communists, subversives, and anarchists.

As the election grew near and we shifted into maximum efficiency mode, our field boss sent out the word: Only go to houses flying the American flag.

That was the easiest way to focus on the most loyal Republicans. In 2018, the two most common flags you saw at people’s houses were the Pride flag (Democrats) and the Stars and Stripes (Republicans).

(The “We Believe in Science” signs had not yet proliferated.)

The funny thing was, we door-knockers were already doing that. I certainly was. I loved canvassing mostly because I liked meeting people. And the best people were always the ones with a big American flag hanging majestically beside their front door.

That was then, this is now

Fast-forward, and I’m at a recent No Kings protest. These protests had drawn huge crowds of leftists and progressives. I wanted to see for myself what these demonstrations looked like.

Imagine my surprise when the first person I encountered was a small elderly woman with a kind face and a big bundle of American flags.

These were 8″ by 12″ flags. The kind little kids might wave at a parade. She approached me and offered me one.

Naturally, I was confused. Was she a Republican? No, she wasn’t. She explained that these were Democrat flags now. The left was taking the flag back. Progressives were patriotic too!

They were? I thought to myself. Since when?

But I was in enemy territory, so I just smiled and took a flag. She showed me the little note that was attached. (Of course, the left can’t give you an American flag without adding their own anti-Trump commentary.)

The note said: “MAGA is trying to claim the American flag as exclusively their own. It is time we reclaim our flag. It is our national promise of freedom, and rightfully belongs to ALL Americans. Wave it proudly.”

I carried it with me as I watched the Trump derangement parade later that day. Multiple American flags were flown. By leftists.

RELATED: Yes, Trump’s flag-burning executive order is constitutional

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

The red and the blue

This isn’t the first time the left has tried to steal symbols or images (or flags) from the right. They also stole the color blue.

Throughout Europe, in the 1800s, revolutionaries and malcontents were associated with the color red. Monarchs and aristocrats were represented by the color blue.

In the early 1900s, the color red was the color of communists, subversives, and anarchists. During the Russian Revolution of 1917, “The Reds” overthrew the czar and started a civil war.

In China, when Chairman Mao Zedong instigated his own revolution in 1949, the flag, books, and symbols were always colored bright red.

This made sense. The color red suggests anger, revolt, defiance.

While blue — the color of the sky — is the color that indicates calmness, stability, order.

So what did the American left do as they consolidated their power in the late 1900s?

They switched the colors! With the help of their allies in the media, the left managed to STEAL the color blue from conservatives.

So now we call Republican states “red” and Democratic states “blue,” which is the reverse of what the colors should be.

Never mind that the Democrats are still the party of chaos and upheaval. They wanted the prestige of the color blue. They want people to think of them as rational, calm, regal. So they changed the colors to favor themselves.

Capture the flag!

Regarding this theft of our flag: Does the left think we don’t remember five years ago? During the BLM riots, they were burning the flag all over the country.

In Portland, during the “Summer of 100 Riots,” they burned the flag as a nightly ritual.

Think back even further: The left has been burning the flag since the Vietnam War. It’s one of their most predictable political reactions. If anything happens that they don’t like, the American flag goes up in flames!

And aren’t these the same people who tore down the statues of our founders, who created that flag? Founders like George Washington?

In Portland, leftists toppled a large statue of George Washington. They left the statue right where it fell, with George Washington face down in the mud!

And these people think the American flag belongs to them? That they are now the patriots? That they should be anywhere near our beloved Stars and Stripes?

I don’t think so.

The good news is, it probably won’t work. Even if their strategists decide to embrace the flag, your average Joe anarchist won’t be able to help himself. They see an American flag, and they reach for their lighter.

But either way, we must reject this movement. Don’t let them have the flag. They don’t deserve it. They haven’t earned it. And they don’t love it. Not like we do.

​America, Lifestyle, Leftist, Old glory, Red and blue, Democrats, Republicans, Portland riots, Flag burning, Capture the flag 

Comedian Jon Stewart shut down liberal journalist David Remnick for accusing Joe Rogan of recklessly platforming “Nazi curious” guests.

In a sit down interview, Stewart recounted his positive experiences appearing on Rogan’s show over the years. Remnick pushed back, criticizing Rogan’s massively popular podcast and protesting past guests who he claims cozy up to Nazis. Stewart flipped the script on Remnick, telling him to “beat him at their own game” instead of just complaining.

‘Then do it better. Beat them at their own game.’

“I enjoyed being on Rogan,” Steward said. “I think he’s an interesting interviewer. There are rightwing weaponized commentators whose sole purpose is to manipulate things to the benefit of the Bannon project or the Project 2025. Rogan is not that guy.”

“That guy is a curious comic who fell into this thing that got f***ing enormous,” Stewart said of Rogan. “Maybe has opinions all over the political spectrum, but has tendencies that people on the left do not fit the aesthetic.”

RELATED: CNN brutally fact-checks Jasmine Crockett for peddling debunked ballroom hoax

Photo by Eugene Gologursky/Getty Images for The New Yorker

Remnick followed up by claiming Rogan has hosted guests that are “Nazi curious,” which Steward dismissed with a hilarious comeback.

“I’ve interviewed Kissinger, and he was carpet-bomb curious,” Stewart said. “I don’t know what to say. It’s very easy to castigate those where we are like, ‘But he had an opinion a few years back that’s corrosive.'”

Stewart’s point didn’t seem to resonate with Remnick, who replied by claiming Rogan is problematic because he hosts controversial guests on his show.

“The difference is when [Kissinger] was carpet-bomb curious, you didn’t say, ‘Oh yeah, that’s awesome,'” Remnick said. “And what happens with Rogan sometimes is that he’ll hear somebody that’s on the dangerous end of the spectrum, and he’ll just kind of soak it in.”

RELATED: Reporter humiliates Kamala Harris over Biden health cover-up: ‘That is a world-class pivot’

Photo by Eugene Gologursky/Getty Images for The New Yorker

Remnick went on to say that part of his concern is that he doesn’t have as big of an audience as Rogan does, which he sees as an ideological barrier.

“Then get it,” Stewart retorted. “Then go on that show and do those things. It’s not acceptable to just say, ‘Well, I don’t like what he does.’ Then do it better. Beat them at their own game. It’s not enough to just complain that, ‘That guy got a platform,’ and, ‘Don’t platform that guy.’ There’s no one in this world that isn’t platformed.”

“Get out there. Fight.”

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

​Jon stewart, Joe rogan, Project 2025, Steve bannon, David remnick, Henry kissinger, The new yorker, Liberal media, Alternative media, Politics 

Half of Americans say they are lonely and isolated — and artificial intelligence is stepping into the void.

Sam Altman recently announced that OpenAI will soon provide erotica for lonely adults. Mark Zuckerberg envisions a future in which solitary people enjoy AI friends. According to the Harvard Business Review, the top uses for large language models are therapy and companionship.

Lonely people don’t need better algorithms. We need better friends — and the courage to be one.

It’s easy to see why this is happening. AI is always available, endlessly patient, and unfailingly agreeable. Millions now pour their secrets into silicon confidants, comforted by algorithms that respond with affirmation and tact.

But what masquerades as friendship is, in fact, a dangerous substitute. AI therapy and friendship burrow us deeper into ourselves when what we most need is to reach out to others.

As Jordan Peterson once observed, “Obsessive concern with the self is indistinguishable from misery.” That is the trap of AI companionship.

Hall of mirrors

AI echoes back your concerns, frames its answers around your cues, and never asks anything of you. At times, it may surprise you with information, but the conversation still runs along tracks you have laid. In that sense, every exchange with AI is solipsistic — a hall of mirrors that flatters the self but never challenges it.

It can’t grow with you to become more generous, honorable, just, or patient. Ultimately, every interaction with AI cultivates a narrow self-centeredness that only increases loneliness and unhappiness.

Even when self-reflection is necessary, AI falls short. It cannot read your emotions, adjust its tone, or provide physical comfort. It can’t inspire courage, sit beside you in silence, or offer forgiveness. A chatbot can only mimic what it has never known.

Most damaging of all, it can’t truly empathize. No matter what words it generates, it has never suffered loss, borne responsibility, or accepted love. Deep down, you know it doesn’t really understand you.

With AI, you can talk all you want. But you will never be heard.

Humans need love, not algorithms

Humans are social animals. We long for love and recognition from other humans. The desire for friendship is natural. But people are looking where no real friend can be found.

Aristotle taught that genuine friendship is ordered toward a common good and requires presence, sacrifice, and accountability. Unlike friendships of utility or pleasure — which dissolve when benefit or amusement fades — true friendship endures, because it calls each person to become better than they are.

Today, the word “friend” is often cheapened to a mere social-media connection, making Aristotelian friendship — rooted in virtue and sacrifice — feel almost foreign. Yet it comes alive in ancient texts, which show the heights that true friendship can inspire.

Real friendships are rooted in ideals older than machines and formed through shared struggles and selfless giving.

In Homer’s “Iliad,” Achilles and Patroclus shared an unbreakable bond forged in childhood and through battle. When Patroclus was killed, Achilles’ rage and grief changed the course of the Trojan War and of history. The Bible describes the friendship of Jonathan and David, whose devotion to one another, to their people, and to God transcended ambition and even family ties: “The soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David.”

These friendships were not one-sided projections. They were built upon shared experiences and selflessness that artificial intelligence can never offer.

Each time we choose the easy route of AI companionship over the hard reality of human relationships, we render ourselves less available and less able to achieve the true friendship our ancestors enjoyed.

Recovering genuine friendship requires forming people who are capable of being friends. People must be taught how to speak, listen, and seek truth together — something our current educational system has largely forgotten.

Classical education offers a remedy, reviving these habits of human connection by immersing students in the great moral and philosophical conversations of the past. Unlike modern classrooms, where students passively absorb information, classical seminars require them to wrestle together over what matters most: love in Plato’s “Symposium,” restlessness in Augustine’s “Confessions,” loss in Virgil’s “Aeneid,” or reconciliation in Shakespeare’s “King Lear.”

These dialogues force students to listen carefully, speak honestly, and allow truth — not ego — to guide the exchange. They remind us that friendship is not built on convenience but on mutual searching, where each participant must give as well as receive.

Reclaiming humanity

In a world tempted by the frictionless ease of talking to machines, classical education restores human encounters. Seminars cultivate the courage to confront discomfort, admit error, and grapple with ideas that challenge our assumptions — a rehearsal for the moral and social demands of real friendship.

RELATED: MIT professor’s 4 critical steps to stop AI from hijacking humanity

Photo by Yuichiro Chino via Getty Images

Is classroom practice enough for friendship? No. But it plants the seeds. Habits of conversation, humility, and shared pursuit of truth prepare students to form real friendships through self-sacrifice outside the classroom: to cook for an exhausted co-worker, to answer the late-night call for help, to lovingly tell another he or she is wrong, to simply be present while someone grieves.

It’s difficult to form friendships in the modern world, where people are isolated in their homes, occupied by screens, and vexed by distractions and schedules. Technology tempts us with the illusion of effortless companionship — someone who is always where you are, whenever you want to talk. Like all fantasies, it can be pleasant for a time. But it’s not real.

Real friendships are rooted in ideals older than machines and formed through shared struggles and selfless giving.

Lonely people don’t need better algorithms. We need better friends — and the courage to be one.

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

​Opinion & analysis, Opinion, Ai, Artificial intelligence, Ai friendship, Artificial intelligence friendship, Loneliness, Loneliness epidemic 

The Trump administration is taking measures to reduce the flood of inadequately vetted foreign labor entering the United States.

The Department of Homeland Security introduced an interim final rule, effective Thursday, that ends the automatic extension of employment authorization for many foreign nationals.

‘All aliens must remember that working in the United States is a privilege, not a right.’

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services stated that the move aims to prioritize “the proper screening and vetting of aliens before extending the validity of their employment authorizations.”

Foreign nationals who file for employment authorization renewals on or after Thursday will not receive an automatic extension.

USCIS contended that the change will allow for “more frequent vetting” and enable it “to deter fraud and detect aliens with potentially harmful intent” for potential removal.

The final rule notes that it aligns with President Donald Trump’s executive orders “Protecting the American People Against Invasion” and “Protecting the United States From Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats.“

RELATED: Walmart, other major companies retreat from sponsoring H-1Bs following Trump administration’s reforms

Photographer: Bonnie Cash/UPI/Bloomberg via Getty Images

“Ending the practice of providing automatic extension of employment authorization documents enhances benefit integrity in adjudications of work authorization requests and will better protect public safety and national security by ensuring that aliens are properly vetted and determined to continue to be eligible, and when applicable, merit a favorable exercise of discretion, for employment authorization before such authorization is provided to the alien,” the interim final rule reads.

The new regulation does not apply to those with Temporary Protected Status, as those authorizations are governed separately.

RELATED: Supreme Court rejects case that would reconsider H-1B-related visas

Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images

“USCIS is placing a renewed emphasis on robust alien screening and vetting, eliminating policies the former administration implemented that prioritized aliens’ convenience ahead of Americans’ safety and security,” USCIS Director Joseph Edlow stated.

“It’s a commonsense measure to ensure appropriate vetting and screening has been completed before an alien’s employment authorization or documentation is extended,” Edlow continued. “All aliens must remember that working in the United States is a privilege, not a right.”

Center for Immigration Studies stated that the new regulation may allow the administration “to more quickly enforce immigration laws, particularly with regard to those who entered the United States illegally but were given work permits.”

The interim final rule repeals a Biden administration regulation, issued in December, that increased the automatic extension period for some applicants from 180 days to 540 days from the expiration date, CIS reported.

“The Biden administration facilitated an invasion of our southern border and abused its parole, asylum, and work authorization authorities. President Trump has a mandate from the American people to stop the invasion and bring common sense back to America’s legal immigration system. Since taking office, President Trump and Secretary Noem have rescinded parole for almost half a million illegal aliens, implemented a new parole fee, and ended decades-long Temporary Protected Status. Now, we are focusing on those who have no right to work here,” a USCIS spokesperson told Blaze News.

“Biden’s automatic extension of Employment Authorization Document (EAD) for aliens posed a security risk that allowed bad actors to continue to work in this country,” the spokesperson continued. “The Trump administration’s interim final rule will ensure that aliens will be properly vetted and screened before USCIS extends their work authorization.”

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

​News, Immigration, Immigration crisis, Illegal immigration crisis, Illegal immigration, Department of homeland security, Dhs, Temporary protected status, Tps, United states citizenship and immigration services, Us citizenship and immigration services, Uscis, Employment authorization, Politics 

While Jason Whitlock respects and celebrates Michael Jordan, he thinks the six-time NBA champion is actually doing more harm than good to the league right now. “Jordan is the black shadow that hovers over the NBA like a dark cloud, and he’s a constant reminder of how things suck right now,” he says.

Jordan, who has mostly stayed out of the public eye since his 2003 retirement, has recently re-entered the NBA as a special contributor. His new show, “MJ: Insights to Excellence” — a prerecorded miniseries of interviews where Jordan shares basketball wisdom and personal reflections with host Mike Tirico — airs weekly during certain NBA games in the 2025-2026 season.

Fans and players have been soaking in Jordan’s wisdom and the tidbits of information he shares about his personal life, but Jason says this focus on the NBA’s “good ol’ days” when Jordan was the face of the league isn’t doing anything positive for the already hurting association. If anything, Jordan’s show is a reminder of how “lazy” today’s NBA players are.

On Tuesday night during the postgame show following the New York Knicks vs. Milwaukee Bucks game, episode two of “MJ: Insights to Excellence” aired. Tirico asked the GOAT his thoughts on “load management” — the strategic practice of resting healthy players during games or limiting their minutes to prevent injuries, manage fatigue, and extend careers.

Jordan, who was notorious for playing through injury and fatigue all 82 games of a season, pulled no punches: “[Load management] shouldn’t be needed … I never wanted to miss a game because it was an opportunity to prove.”

“You have a duty that if [fans] are wanting to see you, and as an entertainer, I want to show,” he added.

While Jordan’s work ethic and commitment to the game will forever be admirable, the fact that it remains unmatched over two decades later only highlights how far the NBA has fallen.

“This is not a criticism of Michael Jordan. It’s really a criticism of Adam Silver and the executives and ownership in the NBA. They can’t come up with a solution for what’s wrong with the NBA, and so they’re allowing Michael Jordan and the media to mostly drive the discussion about what’s wrong with the NBA,” says Jason.

NBC, which recently inked an 11-year, $76 billion media rights deal to broadcast NBA games, is “using the greatest player of all time to basically subtly take a dump on the NBA,” he explains.

“Fearless” contributor and basketball aficionado Jay Skapinac agrees that Michael’s words are true — load management is a reflection of how soft NBA players have become — but the NBA highlighting this is only “undermining the current product.”

If the NBA wants to move into a new era, where grit and passion define the league again, it needs to ditch LeBron James, who he says “is the only player that has left the game worse than the one that he inherited,” and “move forward with these new, bright, rising young stars in the NBA” instead of “focusing on the greatest player that ever existed in the sports history.”

To hear more of the conversation, watch the episode above.

Want more from Jason Whitlock?

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

​Fearless, Fearless with jason whitlock, Jason whitlock, Michael jordan, Basketball, Nba, Adam silver, Blazetv, Blaze media, Lebron james 

Since the assassination of Charlie Kirk, Auron MacIntyre, BlazeTV host of “The Auron MacIntyre Show,” has been calling for conservatives to get serious about crushing left-wing violence. Inaction, he’s warned, will only invite escalation. That’s why as a political party, we must insist that the Trump administration dismantle Antifa, impose severe consequences on those inciting or celebrating murders, and wage economic war via regulatory and legal levers against complicit media.

In other words, the Trump administration needs to use its power to obliterate left-wing chaos.

Auron gets quite a bit of pushback for this stance. Many will use J.R.R. Tolkien’s “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy to argue against the use of power to quell evil. “The one ring is dangerous. … You must reject the call of power because ultimately power corrupts and destroys and divides,” they say.

But Auron says this is a “shallow reading” of the father of modern fantasy’s three-volume series. “Ultimately, while yes, there is a message about power in there, there’s also a message about right authority. The last book is, of course, called ‘Return of the King,’ and this is seen as a good thing,” he counters. “So it doesn’t look like Tolkien is ultimately rejecting the use of power, but he does have some very important things to say about the nature of power.”

To discuss this important distinction, Auron speaks with Evan Cooney, the host and creator of “The Middle-earth Mixer” — a popular podcast that dives into J.R.R. Tolkien’s lore, themes, and Middle-earth universe.

For starters, Tolkien was adamantly opposed to allegory, meaning that the one ring cannot be said to symbolize power alone. Further, in the books, “There is lawful use of lawful authority, which translates to power, that many characters have and have permissions to do so by the creator god Ilúvatar, and then there are characters who commit unlawful use of unlawful authority, and Sauron creating the one ring would be a perfect example of that,” says Cooney.

Auron points to Aragorn, the rightful king of Gondor, as an example. Initially, Aragorn, using the name Strider, runs from his destiny. “And because he’s not in that position of the true king, there are others who are less worthy who are ruling in his place,” says Auron. This is seen by characters and readers alike as a bad thing. Aragorn must wear the crown and wield the sword and scepter, as this is what pushes back darkness and brings order to Middle-earth.

Cooney, unpacking Aragorn’s lineage all the way back to Isildur, who initially took the ring of power from Sauron, says, “This shirking of responsibility from everyone involved and [Arvedui’s, the last king of the North] inability to take power created the political disaster that made for why men were so weak by the time you get to the ‘Fellowship of the Ring.”’

“Ultimately, Tolkien recognizes that power will exist, that this void will be filled, and if it’s not filled with the appropriate people, the worthy people, those who belong in the line … you will be ruled by inferior men,” says Auron. “It’s not that you won’t be ruled; it’s that the stewards are there instead of the kings.”

In the kingdom of Gondor, Denethor — a steward charged with holding the throne in trust until the king returns — is consumed by pride and despair. He refuses to rally with allies, distrusts Aragorn’s claim to the throne, and abandons the city in its darkest hour.

In Rohan, however, King Théoden, who Cooney says is Denethor’s character foil, shows us what it looks like to wield power rightly. With the help of Gandalf, he exiles his corrupt adviser, Gríma Wormtongue — “the quintessential archetype for the sneaky government bureaucrat,” says Cooney — and rides out and meets Sauron’s army in the Battle of the Pelennor Fields.

The exile of Gríma, says Auron, is a lesson for our current government: “The council [of bureaucrats] is paralyzing. It’s meant to be paralyzing. It’s meant to stop you from taking your rightful authority and taking the honorable action, and you have to remove that influence.”

Once evil advisers have been banished, the next step is to step fully into the role of rightful power. After Gríma is exiled, the first thing Gandalf has Théoden do is pick up his sword. “Your fingers would remember their old strength better, if they grasped your sword,” he tells the old king.

“It’s a very moving symbol,” says Auron.

“What stirs the king back to a noble action is he has to feel the weight of the instrument of his office. The rightful sword he has been entrusted with as the civil magistrate has to be felt in his hand before he can once again truly return to who he is and behave honorably.”

To hear the full conversation, watch the episode above.

Want more from Auron MacIntyre?

To enjoy more of this YouTuber and recovering journalist’s commentary on culture and politics, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​The auron macintyre show, Auron macintyre, Lord of the rings, Jr tolkien, Tolkien, Blazetv, Blaze media, Power, Authority 

Space is the defining strategic frontier of the 21st century. America’s space leadership depends on harnessing the private sector to create wealth and focusing the public sector on limited yet critical security and scientific objectives.

While achieving supremacy in cislunar space (the region between Earth and the moon, including the moon’s surface) must be our immediate aim, it lacks the strategic coherence to sustain American leadership over the long term.

America’s commercial space sector provides the capability and incentives to make Mars exploration both symbolically and economically rewarding.

We need long-term goals to define success and clarify tradeoffs. A manned mission to Mars can do both.

China and Russia, our near-peer competitors in space, pose serious challenges. Beijing openly pursues dominance in the Earth-moon system while accelerating toward Mars, with an ambitious sample return mission scheduled for 2028. Russia maintains formidable military capabilities in space, alongside proven Mars science achievements.

If our authoritarian rivals prevail, the world’s free nations may find their ability to access and use space significantly curtailed.

This is why the United States needs a unifying long-term vision that focuses and directs near-term commercial, military, and scientific objectives. We must also research and develop technologies for sustained living in space. A smart Mars strategy provides the needed framework, creating the technological roadmap and institutional durability to win the cislunar competition and position America for permanent space premiership.

Unleash the private sector

America’s commercial space revolution offers a compelling model for space exploration that our competitors cannot match. Most obviously, market forces have been essential for reducing launch costs. SpaceX has already demonstrated that private initiative can outpace government bureaucracies, slashing launch costs from $18,000 per kilogram during the Space Shuttle era to roughly $2,700 for today’s reusable Falcon 9.

A healthy ecosystem of suppliers, including Blue Origin, proves this success isn’t limited to one company. Cheaper launches mean increased launch cadence, which is necessary to keep space habitats provisioned. This is a prerequisite for conducting the research and tests for a journey to Mars.

China’s approach offers an instructive contrast. While Beijing tolerates private sector participation, it ultimately remains under state control. This creates strategic coherence but sacrifices the agility and inventiveness that drive transformative breakthroughs.

Chinese private space companies operate as tools of the state. Precisely because the Chinese Communist Party subordinates the information-generating and incentive-aligning features of markets, they will never enjoy the full benefits of space commerce.

Preparing for Mars missions will yield new technologies with dual-use applications. On-orbit refueling, advanced life support systems, radiation shielding, nuclear propulsion, and autonomous manufacturing capabilities developed for Mars will flow back into energy production, medical devices, artificial intelligence, and advanced manufacturing here on Earth. It will also bolster military preparedness through advancements in basic and applied sciences. All this redounds to national security by increasing the resilience of our space assets.

These developments promise substantial job creation across skill and education levels. While Mars missions certainly demand high-tech expertise and advanced degrees, they also require skilled technicians, machinists, and assembly specialists. Going to Mars will help revitalize America’s industrial base while broadly distributing economic prosperity.

Winning the long game

While a single Mars mission could take 30 months or longer, a Mars program will likely span decades, requiring support from multiple Congresses and presidential administrations.

Avoiding the start-stop cycles that have plagued space programs — from Apollo to Constellation — requires building institutional and political durability at the outset. The foundation must be bipartisan, framing Mars leadership as a matter of national security and economic competitiveness.

Bold endeavors define our national character. Amid social and political fragmentation, undertaking something even greater than a moonshot is an opportunity for national solidarity.

Private-sector anchoring creates a robust foundation. Expanding milestone-based public-private partnerships ties American industry to Mars logistics and operations. When companies and workers nationwide have a stake in space exploration, political support becomes geographically broad and resilient across electoral cycles. Ultimately, mission success offers the best defense against annual appropriations turbulence.

The federal government’s role must remain limited and focused. Agencies should help finance foundational research and development through mission-oriented programs. Public-private agreements should be structured to maximize flexibility. Renting services rather than purchasing equipment ought to be the government’s default approach.

We must also maintain a predictable regulatory environment that protects property rights and resists bureaucratic mission creep. The government’s comparative advantage is setting long-term national objectives and coordinating industry on best practices. While public values channeled through the political process set our destination, private initiative and the profit motive serve as our most powerful engine.

Leveraging alliances

Integration with existing programs maximizes efficiency. The groundwork for future Mars missions should complement, not duplicate, the Space Force’s cislunar operations and NASA’s Artemis lunar architecture. On the international stage, the U.S. should leverage its alliances while ensuring American leadership in setting exploration norms through frameworks such as the Artemis Accords.

Building on our success with the Artemis Accords, we should actively pursue partnerships with the European Union and Japan. We should also deepen space ties with India, which may induce it to align with the free world instead of Russia and China. History has shown our allies will help shoulder the burdens of freedom if America has the courage to lead.

Strategic signaling to allies and competitors augments the framework. A stable, legislated Mars roadmap reassures international partners while deterring rivals, ensuring program continuity.

To the Red Planet!

Mars represents the next great test of American resolve. Bold endeavors define our national character. Amid social and political fragmentation, undertaking something even greater than a moonshot is an opportunity for national solidarity.

The strategic necessity is clear, the economic logic is compelling, and the technological pathway is feasible. What Mars demands now is the political will to harness America’s asymmetric advantages for humanity’s greatest adventure.

RELATED: China is on the brink of beating us back to the moon

Photo by Yang Guanyu/Xinhua via Getty Images

Getting to Mars requires the fortitude to sustain multiyear missions alongside the business discipline to achieve them cost-effectively. America’s commercial space sector provides the capability and incentives to make Mars exploration both symbolically and economically rewarding. Situating our cislunar activities within a Mars plan makes the payoffs even clearer. The moon and Mars are complements, not substitutes.

The choice before us is to either lead a free, rules-based expansion of human civilization beyond Earth or cede the final frontier to authoritarianism. If we fail, we relegate ourselves to the status of a nation in decline. We cannot accept red flags on the Red Planet.

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

​Opinion & analysis, Opinion, Mars, Red planet, Space race, Man on mars, Mars mission, China, China space, China space race, National security 

“Do you know John?”

Yeah, LinkedIn. I know John Leguizamo.

LinkedIn

There is no way John Leguizamo knows me, but following the professional networking platform’s suggestion, I went ahead and sent an invitation to the actor/producer to connect.

I grew up in Queens; my family has a butcher shop in Spanish Harlem. If you think Latinos are so united, see what happens when you call a Puerto Rican a Mexican.

I haven’t kept up with Leguizamo’s career. The only times I see him pop up now is when he’s complaining about the lack of Latino representation in show business. In fact, when it comes to complaining about representation, John Leguizamo is overrepresented.

‘Liquor Store Gunman’

I read in Variety that early on in his career, Leguizamo “felt humiliated” playing the role of “Liquor Store Gunman” in Mike Nichols’ “Regarding Henry” (1991).

“I shoot this white guy [Harrison Ford],” Leguizamo explains. “It was like, ‘Oh my God, I’m perpetuating what they want to see,’ which is negative Latino images.”

It’s interesting that Leguizamo felt humiliated playing a Latino stereotype in “Regarding Henry” but managed to put that humiliation aside a couple years later to play a Latino stereotype in “Carlito’s Way.” To be fair: Latino gangster Benny Blanco from the Bronx is a far more memorable character than Liquor Store Gunman. (What kind of last name is “Gunman” anyway? It ain’t Latin.)

When not at the mercy of other screenwriters and casting agents for roles, Leguizamo, a one-man-show-making machine, made a career out of performing his own Latino characters — which are not all necessarily negative images but certainly stereotypical in many respects. I mean, this is the same artist who made “Freak,” “House of Buggin’,” and “John Leguizamo’s Spic-O-Rama,” which is not to be confused with generic Spic-O-Rama.

In an interview with “NBC Nightly News,” Leguizamo declares, “We’re almost 20% of the population, I want 20% of the executives, 20% of the stories, 20% of the principal leads, then I’ll be quiet.”

Regarding ‘us’

By “we,” of course he means Latinos — which includes me (even though, again, John doesn’t know me).

I doubt a perfectly equitable distribution of roles in show business along ethnic lines will quiet Leguizamo though. Even a world where an Al Pacino can’t swoop in to capture the leading Cuban and Puerto Rican roles will shut Leguizamo up.

Notice Leguizamo isn’t making this appeal for equity when it comes to other industries. Can you picture John Leguizamo showing up to a farm or construction site, demanding fewer Latinos — legal or undocumented — because they’re overrepresented?

So in the year 2025, we’re about 20% of the population, but looking back at the “Regarding Henry” year of 1991 — can you imagine if that were the movie that defined 1991! — Latinos were only about 9% of the population.

In the year of Benny Blanco from the Bronx, 1993, it jumped to about 9.5%. The further you go back, the fewer Latinos there are in the United States. To expect to see yourself represented when there are so few of you out there is quite something. Narcissistic, you might call it. Perfect for a talent like Leguizamo — who has made a lot of work for and about himself. Albeit a lot of good, original, entertaining, and funny work, I must say.

Hate-watch interrupted

Which brings me to his new play, “The Other Americans,” at the Public Theater — which I only heard about because of Leguizamo’s media appearances that come across like he’s on a grievance tour.

So from a marketing standpoint, the Colombian American’s promotional shtick worked. I bought a ticket — but to hate-watch his play.

I don’t like going into a show expecting it to suck — let alone wanting it to suck. I tried to shake those intentions as best as I could. One thing I made sure not to do before the show was to read Leguizamo’s “note from the playwright” that’s printed in the playbill. I don’t know if it really made a difference, because once I stepped into the Anspacher Theater at the Public Theater, he’d won me over.

I had a seat center-stage in the second row. The set looked like an authentic house in Forest Hills, Queens, with a fenced-in backyard and even an above-ground pool that the neighbors could see from their second-story windows. If the Jeffersons had been Latinos, this is what moving on up from Jackson Heights would look like.

The change in neighborhoods is a punch line, as is the pool. One of the first arguments in the play is whether the above-ground pool is a real pool or not, because real pools are in-ground, you know. Yes, an above-ground is kind of trashy, but it still holds water.

RELATED: Bill & Ted share absurdist adventure in new ‘Waiting for Godot’

Bruce Glikas/Michael Ochs Archives/Getty Images

Crowd-pleaser

Leguizamo plays Nelson Castro, a Colombian American laundromat owner, and from his first entrance onto the stage, I’m all in, whether it’s watching him mix a drink or listening to him curse into his cell phone — in English and Spanish. When his wife, Patti (played by actress Luna Lauren Velez), arrives, they’re soon dancing, like a stereotypical Latin couple. The audience loves it.

It feels like I’m on the set of a mult-cam sitcom. The live audience laughs, oohs and aahs. At one point in the play, an audience member caps one of Patti’s lines with what I think was a, “You go, girl!”

I remember Leguizamo saying he was out to create “a new type of American drama” — but what we’re presented with at first is something I could see running on network TV. They’d have to clean up the language and cut back on the Spanglish, but even the plot is perfect pilot material.

Complicated portrayal

Nelson and Patti are preparing for their daughter Toni’s wedding as well as the return of their son, Nick, who’s been gone for some time. Mami’s so nervous she keeps burning the sofrito!

During one of their dance passes in the living room, I notice a run in Patti’s stocking. That image — whether the wardrobe department meant for it to be there or not — has stuck with me.

It turns out their son is coming home after being hospitalized for a nervous breakdown — which his therapist attributes to his family not addressing the trauma he experienced when he was brutally beaten by a group of white boys his last year of high school.

The attack happened at one of his family’s ’mats. The perpetrators even tried to stuff him into one of the washing machines “to wash the brown off of him.” (I guess the racist white boys succeeded? Because the actor who plays Nick, Trey Santiago-Hudson, is rather pale-skinned.)

Nick is in pain and while Nelson wants a do-over with him, the Latin father is not equipped to deal with it. Imagine asking your son who was just released from a mental institution what he has to be anxious about?

It’s in these moments where Leguizamo really shines. He plays such a great dick! Although I don’t think “shines” is the right word for a performance that has so much darkness to it. Nelson is not just a flawed man — in many respects, he’s a wicked man.

The plot to “The Other Americans” is so well-crafted that I don’t want to risk revealing too much, but in one exchange, a family member compares Nelson to Sisyphus of Greek mythology. It’s a setup to a perfect sitcom punch line, where Nelson assumes it must be a real Greek guy from Astoria. But while Nelson shares some traits with Sisyphus, I think he’s even more like Tantalus.

Who’s ‘we’?

In his note from the playwright, John Leguizamo writes:

I wanted to write a play about race, and I wanted it to be complicated. I didn’t want it to be a morality play, but rather I wanted to show life as we Latino people experience it. We don’t always see the microaggressions, or the systemic road blocks in effect. Even though there’s a subtle tokenism at work around us, we often witness the macroaggressions: those obvious, in-your-face type moments. We Latinos experience racism through poverty, the schools in which we are allowed to enroll, and the geographical areas in which we are packed. In New York City, we are equal to the white population, yet you never see us on the cover of newspapers and magazines.

There’s more to his note, but I think this bit above is worth addressing. Firstly, this “we” stuff has got to go. Latinos are not a monolith. I grew up in Queens; my family has a butcher shop in Spanish Harlem. If you think Latinos are so united, see what happens when you call a Puerto Rican a Mexican.

Secondly, in the play Nelson is the one who blames “the system” (which is synonymous with racism) for his lot in life — for example, the failure of his laundromats. “The toxicity of the American dream” is another way I’ve seen it described. But as Nelson’s secrets are revealed, what becomes clear is that he, a tragic figure, is the one responsible for his and his family’s downfall.

The system — if there is one — has actually been very good to the Castros. Just like in real life, the system has been very good to Leguizamo.

With “The Other Americans,” Leguizamo fails to make his political statement but succeeds in making a powerful piece of art. ¡Bravo, hermano! Please accept my invitation on LinkedIn.

​Culture, Plays, Entertainment, John leguizamo, Representation, Latino, The other americans, Review 

A city had a rude awakening when it tested its electric buses for security flaws.

Some cities have gone all-in on their dedication to renewable energy and electric public transportation, but discovering that a jurisdiction does not actually control its own public property likely was not part of the idea.

‘In theory, the bus could therefore be stopped or rendered unusable.’

This turned out to be exactly the case when Ruter — the public transportation authority for Oslo, Norway — decided to run tests on its new Chinese electric buses.

Approximately 300 e-buses from Chinese company Yutong made their way to Norway earlier this year, with outlet China Buses calling it a “core breakthrough” in Chinese brands’ global reach.

Yutong offers at least 15 different types of electric buses ranging from 60- to 120-passenger capacity.

As reported by Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten on Tuesday, Ruter conducted secret testing on some of its electric buses over the summer. It decided to look into one bus from a European manufacturer, as well as another from Yutong, to address cybersecurity risks.

The test results were shocking.

RELATED: Cybernetics promised a merger of human and computer. Then why do we feel so out of the loop?

Photo by Li An/Xinhua via Getty Images

Investigators discovered that the Chinese-built buses could be controlled remotely from their homeland, unlike the European vehicles.

Ruter reported that the Chinese can access software updates, diagnostics, and battery systems remotely, and, “In theory, the bus could therefore be stopped or rendered unusable by the manufacturer.”

The details were described by Arild Tjomsland, who helped conduct the tests. Tjomsland is a special adviser at the University of South-Eastern Norway, according to Turkish website AA.

“The Chinese bus can be stopped, turned off, or receive updates that can destroy the technology that the bus needs to operate normally,” Tjomsland reportedly said. He additionally noted that while the buses could not be steered remotely, they could still be shut down and used as leverage by bad actors.

Pravda Norway described the situation as the Chinese government essentially being able to decommission the buses at any time.

RELATED: US Army says it is not replacing ‘human decision-making’ with AI after general admits to using chatbot

Photo by Lyu You/Xinhua via Getty Images

Norway’s transport minister praised Ruter for completing the tests and said the government would initiate a risk assessment related to countries “with which Norway does not have security policy cooperation.”

Ruter’s CEO, Bernt Reitan Jenssen, said the company plans on working with authorities to strengthen the cybersecurity surrounding its public infrastructure.

“We need to involve all competent authorities that deal with cybersecurity, stand together, and draw on cutting-edge expertise,” Jenssen said.

As a temporary fix, Ruter revealed the buses can be disconnected from the internet by removing their SIM cards to assume “local control should the need arise.”

There was no word as to whether the SIM cards are upsized for buses.

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

​Return, China, Surveillance, European union, Electric vehicles, Tech 

The shocking assassination of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University puts an exclamation point on the degraded state of reasoned debate in America.

Like many in the last month or so, I’ve found myself doing a deep dive into Kirk’s YouTube channel, watching debate after debate. You learn something from watching them in full: Kirk was willing to talk to anybody, and he always brought liberals to the front of the line.

We must teach our students to be virtuous, both individually and politically.

He was pugnacious at times, but always civil. His interlocutors sometimes resorted to ad hominem attacks, and their arguments often collapsed under a steady stream of his questions and retorts. Time after time, these students lost the debate with Kirk because they simply didn’t know enough.

‘Action civics’

What causes a person to stake out a position with such confidence before mastering the evidence to support it? For many of the students who challenged Kirk, the answer is “action civics.” This pedagogical theory holds that the highest form of civic participation is protest rather than discussion. Its result is thoughtless grandstanding or worse. The antidote to this state of affairs is classical education rightly understood.

When it comes to civics, knowledge is necessary but not sufficient. Civic life requires more than a grasp of American history and government, as important as those things are. It requires us to be people formed by practice in the habit of reasoned deliberation — people who know how to disagree and be disagreed with and who are willing to change their opinions when they learn something.

Political speech — reasoned discussion about the good within a regime — allows us to improve our opinions by sharing them with others and refining them through conversation and disagreement. Civic education divorced from these practical virtues produces either performative activism or feckless intellectualizing.

These virtues can be cultivated within the classroom through classical education. Reading and discussing works from Aristotle to the Federalist allows students to wrestle with enduring questions about justice, rights, and the good life. They learn not only to discern what is right but also to pursue it amid the complexities of a changing world.

Yet the real formation comes in seminars and Socratic discussions, which are laboratories of civic practice.

After years outside of the classroom, this semester I began teaching a course on moral and political philosophy to 11th graders. These students are young, but after years in a classical school, they have some real learning under their belts. The task this year is to develop within them the habits necessary for a real seminar conversation, with Socratic discussion three days a week and a full-blown seminar on the other two.

Running a seminar

In a well-run seminar, teachers merely provide a question about a great work of literature, history, or philosophy, intervening to guide the discussion only rarely. As in life, no authority swoops in to give the right answer and make decisions for everyone else. It’s the students who lead and who learn to find their way together.

A properly run seminar allows students to disagree and be disagreed with. They are forced to humble themselves before an author and a text, to scrutinize their own opinions, and to discard error in favor of knowledge.

But it isn’t a lawless environment. Students in a well-run seminar know that they are to speak about the text and only the text. Every comment must respond to the previous speaker. Non sequiturs are not allowed, and the students don’t interrupt each other (we are still working on that last one).

If we want a citizenry capable of sustaining liberty, we cannot settle for activist training without understanding, nor abstract lectures without practice.

When they do speak, they have to ground their statements in an argument drawn from the text. If they don’t have an interpretation of the text to offer, they can ask a thoughtful question, which is often just as beneficial to the conversation as a well-reasoned argument.

Disagreement in the seminar room is an opportunity to learn that disputing someone’s argument doesn’t mean impugning their character. Most teenagers are terrified to disagree with someone their own age and even more terrified to be disagreed with. But after a few weeks, they develop thicker skin. They learn to think more about the substance of their argument and less about their social standing.

RELATED: How Charlie Kirk’s life shows the power of self-education

skynesher via iStock/Getty Images

When the arbiter of the debate is the text itself, everyone knows that success means advancing the clearest and most correct reading. And when the text is rich and deep, it takes time, conversation, and disagreement to interpret it well.

Disagreement is an opportunity for clarification. In a well-developed seminar, it’s welcomed. What matters is not superficial civility, but the willingness to examine and revise our opinions in light of reason and fact, to argue from truth rather than feeling, and to labor toward a common understanding.

Dare to disagree

In a way, these classroom discussions on Plato and Virgil, Swift and Shakespeare, are a crash course in practical civics. Not protest, not theory, but character formation through dialogue, study, and experience — all preparing students not only to understand their country but to participate in it responsibly. In a way, classical education creates more people like Charlie Kirk.

If we want a citizenry capable of sustaining liberty, we cannot settle for activist training without understanding, nor abstract lectures without practice. We must teach our students to be virtuous, both individually and politically. Only then will they be capable of self-government — not as activists or spectators, but as citizens.

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

​Opinion & analysis, Civility, Civics, Civic education, Education, Hillsdale college, Charter schools, Action civics, Protests, Plato, Virgil, Swift, Shakespeare, Aristotle, Citizenship, Citizens, Seminar, Reason