Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

To Serve Man—2025 Edition

A classic Twilight Zone episode predicted how democracy dies—not through hidden conspiracies but through willing participation.

Opinion

an illustration of pople walking with brief cases from a UFO.

Echoing Serling’s To Serve Man, Edward Saltzberg reveals how modern authoritarianism uses language, fear, and media control to erode democracy from within.

In March 1962, Rod Serling introduced a Twilight Zone episode that feels prophetic today. "To Serve Man" begins with nine-foot aliens landing at the United Nations, promising to end war and famine. They offer boundless energy and peace. Unlike the menacing invaders of 1950s sci-fi, these Kanamits present themselves as benefactors with serene expressions and soothing words.

The promises appear real. Wars cease. Deserts bloom into gardens. Crop yields soar. People line up eagerly at the Kanamits' embassy to volunteer for trips to the aliens' paradise planet—a world without hunger, conflict, or want.


But back at the UN, translators keep working on the aliens' mysterious book. The meaning comes only in fragments. Meanwhile, protagonist Michael Chambers grows comfortable with the idea of boarding one of the ships. If hunger is solved and peace secured, why not see what else the Kanamits have to offer?

The suspense builds as he walks up the ramp. Just then, his colleague runs forward in panic. She has cracked more of the book's text. Her voice is urgent as guards push Chambers aboard: "Don't go! The book—To Serve Man—it's a cookbook!"

The final image shows Chambers trapped in a cell, speaking directly to the audience from aboard the alien vessel. He tells us that sooner or later, we'll all be on the menu.

The Hidden vs. The Visible

Serling, a World War II paratrooper, used science fiction because network censors blocked his scripts about lynching and war. As he said, "I found that it was all right to have Martians say things Democrats and Republicans could never say." The Kanamits needed everyone to believe their lie about benevolent service.

Today's authoritarianism works differently. It operates multiple cookbooks simultaneously: sanitized bureaucratic language for institutions, protective messaging for supporters, and open intimidation for opponents. The Kanamits needed universal deception. This administration has discovered something more efficient—and more chilling: you don't need to fool everyone when you can convince enough people they're the chefs, not the meal.

When Government Pressure Works

Consider what happened to Jimmy Kimmel. After he mocked the political response to Charlie Kirk's assassination, FCC Chair Brendan Carr didn't work behind closed doors. He went on podcasts and threatened Disney's broadcast licenses publicly. "We can do this the easy way or the hard way," Carr declared. "These companies can find ways to take action on Kimmel, or there's going to be additional work for the FCC ahead."

Within hours, major station owners Nexstar and Sinclair announced they would no longer air Kimmel's show. Disney, facing the loss of crucial broadcast licenses worth billions, caved immediately. The show went dark that same night. PEN America called it "government-instigated censorship." Even Republican senators like Rand Paul condemned it as "absolutely inappropriate." But it worked—the threat was public, immediate, and devastatingly effective.

Troops in the Streets

The administration declared a "crime emergency" in Washington, D.C., deploying 800 National Guard troops to patrol the capital's streets like an occupying force. The move came after a single incident involving a government worker, but the response was overwhelming: armed soldiers in fatigues manning checkpoints, conducting searches, and establishing what the administration called "protective perimeters."

In Los Angeles, the deployment was even more dramatic: 4,000 Guard members and 700 Marines swept into neighborhoods during immigration raids. Residents watched through windows as military vehicles rolled down residential streets and troops in body armor set up operations. The administration framed it as protecting federal agents, but a federal judge saw through the euphemisms.

The judge's ruling was scathing: the administration had "systematically used armed soldiers" whose "identity was often obscured by protective armor" to "demonstrate a military presence" and conduct law enforcement activities. This violated the 19th-century Posse Comitatus Act, which explicitly bars the military from policing American citizens. The judge wrote that such conduct amounted to "creating a national police force with the President as its chief."

Just this week, a new executive order took the normalization further. Federal agencies must now "question and interrogate" individuals engaged in political violence regarding the entity or individual organizing such actions before any plea agreements. The order describes this as part of a "comprehensive strategy to investigate, disrupt, and dismantle" domestic terrorism networks.

But strip away the sanitized language, and this is expanded interrogation authority—the power to extract information about political associations before defendants can even consider plea deals. It's presented as "Countering Domestic Terrorism," another cookbook that frames broad investigative powers as protective service for the American people.

The Democratic Test

In Serling's episode, the turning point comes when the translator finally reads beyond the title. Until then, "To Serve Man" was enough to calm suspicion. Only a full translation revealed the cookbook's true purpose.

Democracy depends on such translators—journalists who track how laws work in practice, watchdog groups that expose how "reforms" harm people, and courts that check whether emergency powers match legal boundaries. Without them, promises of service go untested.

The Kanamits needed to hide their cookbook because they required universal compliance. Modern authoritarianism operates in plain sight because it needs only selective permission. Some resist, some look away, and some board willingly, convinced they'll be dining, not being served.

Leaders will always promise they've come to serve. Our job is to translate what that really means—before we board the ship.

Edward Saltzberg is the Executive Director of the Security and Sustainability Forum and the author of The Stability Brief, with over 40 years of experience in civic leadership.

Read More

Framing "Freedom"

hands holding a sign that reads "FREEDOM"

Photo Credit: gpointstudio

Framing "Freedom"

The idea of “freedom” is important to Americans. It’s a value that resonates with a lot of people, and consistently ranks among the most important. It’s a uniquely powerful motivator, with broad appeal across the political spectrum. No wonder, then, that we as communicators often appeal to the value of freedom when making a case for change.

But too often, I see people understand values as magic words that can be dropped into our communications and work exactly the way we want them to. Don’t get me wrong: “freedom” is a powerful word. But simply mentioning freedom doesn’t automatically lead everyone to support the policies we want or behave the way we’d like.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hands resting on another.

Amid headlines about Epstein, survivors’ voices remain overlooked. This piece explores how restorative justice offers CSA survivors healing and choice.

Getty Images, PeopleImages

What Do Epstein’s Victims Need?

Jeffrey Epstein is all over the news, along with anyone who may have known about, enabled, or participated in his systematic child sexual abuse. Yet there is significantly less information and coverage on the perspectives, stories and named needs of these survivors themselves. This is almost always the case for any type of coverage on incidences of sexual violence – we first ask “how should we punish the offender?”, before ever asking “what does the survivor want?” For way too long, survivors of sexual violence, particularly of childhood sexual abuse (CSA), have been cast to the wayside, treated like witnesses to crimes committed against the state, rather than the victims of individuals that have caused them enormous harm. This de-emphasis on direct survivors of CSA is often presented as a form of “protection” or “respect for their privacy” and while keeping survivors safe is of the utmost importance, so is the centering and meeting of their needs, even when doing so means going against the grain of what the general public or criminal legal system think are conventional or acceptable responses to violence. Restorative justice (RJ) is one of those “unconventional” responses to CSA and yet there is a growing number of survivors who are naming it as a form of meeting their needs for justice and accountability. But what is restorative justice and why would a CSA survivor ever want it?

“You’re the most powerful person I’ve ever known and you did not deserve what I did to you.” These words were spoken toward the end of a “victim offender dialogue”, a restorative justice process in which an adult survivor of childhood sexual abuse had elected to meet face-to-face for a facilitated conversation with the person that had harmed her. This phrase was said by the man who had violently sexually abused her in her youth, as he sat directly across from her, now an adult woman. As these two people looked at each other at that moment, the shift in power became tangible, as did a dissolvement of shame in both parties. Despite having gone through a formal court process, this survivor needed more…more space to ask questions, to name the impacts this violence had and continues to have in her life, to speak her truth directly to the person that had harmed her more than anyone else, and to reclaim her power. We often talk about the effects of restorative justice in the abstract, generally ineffable and far too personal to be classifiable; but in that instant, it was a felt sense, it was a moment of undeniable healing for all those involved and a form of justice and accountability that this survivor had sought for a long time, yet had not received until that instance.

Keep ReadingShow less
Labeling Dissent As Terrorism: New US Domestic Terrorism Priorities Raise Constitutional Alarms

A new Trump administration policy threatens to undermine foundational American commitments to free speech and association.

Labeling Dissent As Terrorism: New US Domestic Terrorism Priorities Raise Constitutional Alarms

A largely overlooked directive issued by the Trump administration marks a major shift in U.S. counterterrorism policy, one that threatens bedrock free speech rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

National Security Presidential Memorandum/NSPM-7, issued on Sept. 25, 2025, is a presidential directive that for the first time appears to authorize preemptive law enforcement measures against Americans based not on whether they are planning to commit violence but for their political or ideological beliefs.

Keep ReadingShow less
Someone holding a microphone.

Personal stories from constituents can profoundly shape lawmakers’ decisions. This excerpt shows how citizen advocacy influences Congress and drives real policy change.

Getty Images, EyeEm Mobile GmbH

Want to Influence Government? Start With Your Story

[The following article is excerpted from "Citizen’s Handbook for Influencing Elected Officials."]


Rep. Nanette Barragán (D-California) wanted to make a firm statement in support of continued funding of the federal government’s Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) during the recent government shutdown debate. But instead of making a speech on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, she traveled to the Wilmington neighborhood of her Los Angeles district to a YMCA that was distributing fresh food and vegetables to people in need. She posted stories on X and described, in very practical terms, the people she met, their family stories, and the importance of food assistance programs.

Keep ReadingShow less