The older I get, the more suspiciously I look at the causes of war. This is natural. Young people — especially young men — are incapable of properly evaluating risk. Though they are rebellious, they also follow orders from authority figures. There is a reason why eighteen-year-olds are sent over embankments to cross open fields on the frontlines: They can be convinced to pursue success and ignore mortality. Courageous young men look right past danger. Only years later do they ask themselves, “Why the hell did I do that?”
There is no question that we are being psychologically prepped for a great and terrible war. Whether you are a civilian, veteran, or active service member, you surely have heard over the last ten years at least one commanding officer describe publicly the likelihood of a U.S.-China war or wider WWIII in the near future.
European politicians have been instructing their citizens to prepare for a full-on military conflict with Russian forces since the current war in Ukraine began. Such civilian war preparations have not been limited to the Baltic states, Finland, or Poland. France and the United Kingdom have spent the last several years conditioning citizens to expect bloodshed with the Russian Federation.
During the half-century Cold War, violence operated mainly in the shadows and through “proxies” so that the United States and the Soviet Union could at least pretend they were not directly fighting one another. Such was the shared fear of nuclear weapons — and of mutually assured destruction — that even bitter enemies did what they could to limit runaway escalation. The Moscow-Washington hotline — or what Hollywood mythologized as the doom-averting “red phone” — was established because both sides understood the stakes of WWIII.
Cold War warriors generally took to heart a quote attributed to Albert Einstein: “I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.” With this warning lingering in the minds of men who could unleash global annihilation with the pressing of a few buttons, humanity has somehow avoided destroying itself in the eighty years since the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
In my estimation, the mood has radically changed over the last fifteen years. A more cavalier attitude toward the use of nuclear weapons has replaced decades-long angst and circumspection. Senators, generals, and even diplomats publicly make the case for the use of terrible weapons that could easily lead to mass slaughter on a scale never before witnessed. Gone are the days of worrying about the end of life as we know it. In their place, a new generation of military and political leaders seem to be not so quietly echoing a spine-chilling refrain: How will nuclear weapons deter our enemies if we are habitually afraid to use them?
Five years after mass hysteria concerning COVID convinced much of the world to shut down for no good reason, more people are familiar with the concept of “mass formation psychosis.” Simply stated, this phenomenon exists when large numbers of people believe in something detached from reality. I put COVID in the same category as man-made “climate change.” I believe that a large percentage of the global population has been manipulated to believe that both are much more dangerous than they really are.
For hundreds of years, academic studies have shown how political leaders exploit the “madness of crowds” to their advantage. In the early twentieth century, “propaganda” even had a positive connotation, as the “elites” of the day argued that “educated” people have a moral duty to corral the masses. In Public Opinion, writer Walter Lippmann argues explicitly that “experts” should use a combination of propaganda and censorship to “manufacture” the consent of the “bewildered herd.” If the “educated” class finds it useful to scare the dickens out of humanity with regard to coronaviruses and carbon dioxide, it will do so.
With this in mind, it is entirely possible that I am serving as a useful idiot when it comes to worries over WWIII. Perhaps I am doing exactly what Lippmann’s disciples wish me to do by professing my genuine concerns regarding the devastating global conflict heading our way. It still feels like yesterday, however, when I was reading of the likelihood of Islamic terror attacks on U.S. soil years before the murder of 3,000 Americans on September 11, 2001. Now I read and hear similar predictions for a great war ahead, and I cannot help but be filled with terrible dread.
As with all matters involving mass communication and public opinion, the whole thing devolves into a “chicken or the egg” quandary rather fast. Am I writing about WWIII because so many signs indicate that it will arrive within the decade? Or am I inadvertently pushing what I wish to avoid by helping to convince society that it is imminent? Putting the dilemma of causality aside, I will say that I learned long ago that the war machine first prepares the public for conflict in the information space before officially firing weapons on the battlefield.
As distasteful as it sounds, the military considers civilian minds part of the overall battlespace during war. Before every conflict begins, the social consciousness is shaped to accept, expect, and engage in battle. It feels as if we are being directed toward global war today.
Such an assertion might appear strange coming in the same week that President Trump is brokering peace in the Middle East. Even casual students of war would expect that region of the world to be fully enflamed during any true global conflict. Yet there are over fifty other conflicts raging around the world today, and over ninety countries are involved in battles beyond their territorial borders.
Although some Western societies can be hypnotized into believing that the world is enjoying relative peace, war is spreading faster today than it has since WWII. Even with so much bloodshed, though, we have seen nothing that approaches the level of violence that will unfold should the Russia-Ukraine war transform into a U.S.-Russia war or simmering tensions between China and Taiwan transform into a direct showdown between the U.S. and China.
For the last decade, military academics have been predicting a global war by 2030. Suspiciously, that is the date that the World Economic Forum, United Nations, and other globalist institutions have been highlighting as a universal “pivot” for humanity. Artificial intelligence is evolving quickly. Plans for mandatory digital identifications are taking hold across Europe. Central banks are designing government-controlled digital currencies. The European Union wants access to all private communications. As president, Joe Biden constructed a “disinformation board” to filter public information and censor dissent. The walls of a grand surveillance prison are being built all around us, while the same powers that be are preparing the public for economic hardship and prolonged war.
We may not like it. We may not want it. But it appears our “betters” expect us to take it in stride.
There is another option. It is at least possible that billions of humans on this planet learn to push back. Rather than permitting a handful of “elites” to dictate “public opinion,” the public might discover that it has some control over its opinions, too. If enough people refuse to engage in senseless slaughter, perhaps the globalists who wish to lead us to war will discover that no-one is much interested in following. Nothing so perfectly epitomizes the “madness of crowds,” after all, than millions of young people rushing carelessly into the madness of war.
For the sake of those who will otherwise lose their lives in the coming fights, I pray that wiser stewards of peace chart the course ahead.
Safeguarding Your American Dream: Discover the Power of America First Healthcare
In today’s economy, healthcare costs remain one of the biggest threats to financial stability and family security. Americans work hard to build a better life, yet rising medical expenses can quickly erode savings, force tough trade-offs, and even push families toward debt or bankruptcy. Medical bills continue to rank as the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States, with millions facing underinsurance or unexpected out-of-pocket burdens that no one plans for. Many turn to government-run marketplace plans under the Affordable Care Act, hoping for relief, only to discover that what appears affordable on paper often delivers higher long-term costs, limited real protection, and coverage that may not align with personal values or family needs.
America First Healthcare stands out as a private insurance agency dedicated to helping conservatives and families secure better coverage and better rates through customized, values-aligned options. By conducting free insurance reviews, the agency uncovers hidden gaps in existing policies and connects clients with private alternatives that emphasize personal responsibility, small-government principles, and genuine affordability—often delivering up to 20% savings while providing stronger protection for the American Dream.
The allure of marketplace plans is easy to understand: open enrollment periods, premium tax credits for many households, and the promise of “comprehensive” benefits mandated by law. Yet recent data reveals a different reality, especially after the expiration of enhanced premium subsidies at the end of 2025. Enrollment for 2026 dropped by more than one million people compared to the prior year, with many shifting to lower-tier bronze plans to keep monthly premiums manageable.
These plans feature significantly higher deductibles—averaging around $7,500 nationally—and greater cost-sharing requirements. Families who once paid modest amounts after subsidies now face average premium increases of $65 or more per month, even as they accept plans that leave them responsible for thousands in upfront costs before meaningful coverage kicks in.
High deductibles create a dangerous barrier to care. Studies show that people in such plans are less likely to seek timely treatment for chronic conditions, attend preventive screenings, or fill necessary prescriptions. A seemingly minor illness or injury can balloon into major expenses when patients delay care until problems worsen. For a family of four, a single hospitalization, cancer diagnosis, or unexpected surgery can easily exceed the deductible, triggering coinsurance and out-of-pocket maximums that still leave substantial bills. One recent analysis noted that some proposed changes could push family deductibles toward $31,000 in future years, further exposing households to financial risk.
Beyond the numbers, marketplace plans often carry structural limitations. Coverage for certain critical services may include waiting periods or narrower networks that restrict access to preferred doctors and specialists. Preventive care is required to be covered without cost-sharing, but everything else—lab work, imaging, specialist visits, or ongoing treatment—typically waits until the deductible is met. This reactive model contrasts sharply with the proactive, holistic approach many families prefer, especially those focused on wellness, early intervention, and maintaining health to enjoy life rather than merely reacting to illness.
Values alignment represents another growing concern. Government-influenced plans operate within a framework shaped by federal mandates and political priorities that may not reflect conservative principles of limited government, personal freedom, and ethical stewardship. Families who want to direct their healthcare dollars toward providers and benefits that honor traditional values sometimes find marketplace options feel misaligned, forcing a compromise between affordability and conviction.
Private alternatives, by contrast, offer year-round flexibility without the restrictions of open enrollment windows. Independent agents can shop across a wider range of carriers to design plans tailored to specific family needs—whether that means lower deductibles for frequent medical users, broader provider networks, or add-ons that support wellness and preventive services from day one. Clients frequently report more stable premiums that do not automatically escalate each year, along with genuine cost savings once the full picture of deductibles, copays, and coverage depth is considered.
Take the experience of real families who made the switch. Amanda C. shared that her new plan felt “way better” than what she had through the marketplace. Johnny Y. noted his previous coverage kept increasing annually until he found a more stable private option. Sofia S. expressed delight with her plan and began recommending it to others. These stories echo a common theme: when families move beyond one-size-fits-all government marketplaces, they often discover customized protection that better safeguards both health and finances.
Founder Jordan Sarmiento’s own journey underscores the stakes. In 2021, a six-day hospitalization generated a $95,000 bill. Under a well-structured private “Conservative Care Coverage” plan, his out-of-pocket responsibility would have been just $500. That stark difference illustrates how thoughtful planning and private options can prevent a medical event from becoming a financial catastrophe.
Practical steps exist for anyone questioning their current coverage. Start with a no-obligation review of your existing policy to identify gaps—high deductibles, limited critical-care benefits, or escalating premiums. Compare total projected costs (premiums plus potential out-of-pocket expenses) rather than monthly premiums alone. Consider family health history, anticipated needs, and lifestyle priorities. Private agencies can present side-by-side options that include stronger wellness incentives, broader access, and plans built on shared values of self-reliance and freedom.
In an era when healthcare inflation continues to outpace general cost-of-living increases, relying solely on marketplace solutions carries growing risk. Families who proactively explore private alternatives frequently achieve meaningful savings while gaining peace of mind that their coverage truly works when needed most.
America First Healthcare makes this exploration straightforward through its free review process. Families and individuals receive personalized guidance to close coverage holes, reduce unnecessary expenses, and secure plans that align with conservative principles—protecting wallets, health, and the American Dream without government overreach. Many who complete a review discover they can enjoy better benefits for less, often saving up to 20% while gaining the customization and stability that marketplace plans struggle to deliver.
Ultimately, protecting your family’s future requires looking beyond the marketing of “affordable” government options. By understanding the long-term costs hidden in high deductibles, shifting coverage tiers, and values mismatches, Americans can make empowered choices. Private, values-driven insurance offers a smarter path—one that rewards diligence, supports wellness, and delivers real security. For those ready to move beyond the limitations of traditional marketplace plans, a simple review can reveal options designed to serve families, not bureaucracies. The American Dream thrives when individuals and families retain control over their healthcare decisions, and thoughtful private coverage plays a vital role in making that possible.
We were warned by GOD in his book about this. The way of peace they know not. Yes, even our side will keep the enemy alive for this purpose.