My wife and I were taking advantage of the spring weather, out on a walk together, baby in stroller, when a voice from behind us interrupted our stride:
“Excuse me, miss, why do you walk with your hands behind your back?”
Apparently, according to this inquirer, my wife was walking with her hands clasped together behind her and it made him curious. And, after he said it, I immediately knew what he meant, I had seen her do this before and now considered that it wasn’t a common thing for American women to do.
My wife—other than to answer the man with his New Jersey accent that it is something common with older people from her place—had no good answer.
She told me later it was something she recalls her grandma doing and was not something she ever gave much conscious thought to until he stopped us. It was just what felt natural or right to her—a mannerism that the Igorot women of certain age and good reputation simply did.
The best explanation I have found is that this is social signalling in Asian culture. It is an image of authority and composure. And it could mean my wife feels confident, does not need to be in a rush or has earned the right to be contemplative, non-defensive and like a respected elder in her native culture.
Whatever it is, it isn’t deliberate or something she tried to do, it had just naturally came to her.
Mennonite Matriarchs and Mirroring Behaviors
What piqued my further interest was a parallel conversation, led by Dorcas Smucker (a popular conservative Mennonite blogger), trying to figure out why her female religious peers cross their arms in front of them while standing.
The answers ranged from comfort to having no pockets in their traditional dress—or a resting position. Others say it is a defensive posture or a symptom of women ashamed of their feminity or trying to hide themselves. However, I have also noticed, in office meetings, my male coworkers—all of us from Amish or Mennonite background—sit around the table with their arms crossed. The room is a bit cool. Maybe that’s all it is?
I’m guessing this has very little to do with what is projected onto it by those who often seem to see the broader American culture as some kind of benchmark for normal.
Yes, it is the case that those of us born into this religious subculture tend to be self-conscious about what we wear and appearance. I knew I was odd, at a public school, wearing long pants during the heat of August, and had classmates who would remind me of my being Mennonite. But is it the cause every mannerism?
Chimpanzees also cross their arms. But it is described as just being a neutral relaxed position or simply a way to rest and relieve muscle strain. The crossed arms as being a defensive posture has fallen out of favor with experts. Could there be some post hoc rationalizing in how we explain human body language?
Mirroring behavior provides a more plausible explanation. This is to say we will just imitate the postures or mannerisms of others in our group without a thought. This is called “chameleon effect” and part of the way we build rapport or trust. It is part of our sense of belonging within a community. It’s wired in our brain—the “mirror neurons” which fire off both when we perform a particular action as well as when we see someone else doing the same thing. Nobody has to tell us to do it.
This is deliberate. Mirroring is subconscious.This hand gesture is very common all throughout the Philippines. The “I’m good looking” pose. Click here for more gestures.
So what is likely, whether those Mennonite arms crossed or Igorot elders walking with their hands clasped behind, is that these postures are about a cultural identity and unconscious process where we copy those whom we respect in the group or just what we have seen thus accept as normal. It is social glue—in the same way my cousin picked up her Southern drawl after marrying a Virginia boy. This is similar to how we yawn when other people do. It’s just an instinct.
Social Glue in Religious Ritual Too
What’s interesting is that religions attempt to capitalize on this by forced mirroring that becomes unconscious. The extended hand, the greeting a non-relative as “brother” and all ritual is about building an artificial bond that makes us feel like we belong. It’s in the silly cliché phrases, they’re part of that “hedge of protection” around community identity, and just social connection that makes us feel comfortable.
Common in the East.The “Four Olds” (old ideas, old culture, old customs, and old habits) of the Cultural Revolution didn’t reach Chairman Mao. His hands are still in the traditional Asian authority position.
However, this can also make life very difficult for those outside coming in. An outsider that tries to go through the same motions will very likely look forced—like a mask or performance rather than genuine. This “false signal” could be taken as mockery and give off an uncanny valley feel that makes people suspicious or uncomfortable. Not to mention it is hard for the person trying to keep up the appearance as well. Like the time when I awkwardly did a full prostration rather than the requested bow from the priest for that part of an Orthodox service.
And yet, off the insecurities most contemptible, it is this need to explain or apologize for what was programmed into us by our culture. Hands in contemplative clasp behind our back while we walk or an assuring restful self-hug, we need not ever feel awkward about our mannerisms and physical pose simply because it is unique to our own subset of humankind. It is an unfortunate side-effect of modern pluralism and exposure is we’re left second guessing our status rather than just being a part of the social fabric.
We don’t need to defend or pathologize this.
At the same time, like physical posture, culture is built on religion and our moral assumptions are simply inherited. So there is a place for careful deliberation and more intentionality in what we do. And by understanding how new generations absorb through a process of socialization osmosis rather than verbally through instruction. If more is caught than taught; if many things are learned through unconscious mirroring—then we need to practice much more than we ever preach.
Why do we put fabric all over our bodies—why not be naked?
For protection.
We wear clothes for a layer of protection against the elements.
Clothing helps us keep our body heat in the cold air. It is a barrier against harmful solar radiation. This invention allows us fragile creatures to navigate harsh environments that would kill us otherwise.
We also wear clothes as a matter of public health. This covering is beneficial from a sanitation perspective and for keeping all of our disease spreading bodily fluids off of shared surfaces.
There is a significant social component or function as well. Having the ‘right’ clothes matters if you want to fit in. It could be a religious group you wish to belong to or just the popular kids at school—but you will be judged by the outfits you wear.
My son, for example, found out the pair of sneakers (bought with his money) weren’t cool because they weren’t some recognized name brand. Agree or not, I know there’s no point in fighting this pressure to conform. If a kid does not want to be ridiculed they will wear the currently acceptable style.
Even those counter-cultural types are just responding to this pressure by going in an opposite—yet as completely predictable—direction. From Hipsters who all looked the same trying to be different to the Goth kids with their own uniform that is stricter than the typical and mainline dress regime—all are obeying a rule.
Even in trying to look different we end up looking the same.
Dress is a part of group identity—a way to belong to a group. Amish will know other Amish in the same way gang members or police officers recognize each other. It is by wearing the correct colors, or following the correct patterns, that an individual gains the necessary recognition to gain the benefit and protection of a community. Sure, we may not always like it, we might see this as being superficial, but clothing sends signals that can either make us more vulnerable or more safe.
Conservatives have long valued modesty over inviting attention. This is something developed from tradition. But not tradition without any practical purpose or merit. My wife, from a place where the government is a bit weaker, told me never to display any signs of wealth as this would make me into a target. And I could certainly protest the recommendation as an infringement on my freedom—that I am American, with rights, and can therefore will do whatever I please! However, that belief won’t save me from a mugger in a back alley, will it?
Modesty is about protection. It is about keeping hungry eyes off of those assets we don’t plan on giving away. No, that does not mean our immodesty justifies assault, theft or rape. It also does not mean our modesty is a foolproof protection. Rather, it is sort of like N95 masks and Covid, this is only one part of a larger strategy that is designed to minimize a particular risk rather than fully eliminate it.
It is sometimes a matter of public decency and respect for others. If there’s a sign on the door of a business: “no shirt, no shoes, no service” Why make a scene?
We should understand—as conservative people—that this public space comes with a set of public expectations and should probably comply without causing drama.
There was a time—and not very long ago—for the reasons outlined above, a woman wouldn’t leave the house without a proper dress, blouse and bonnet. Both men and women covered up, to be prepared for an environment that was harsh and only the insane did otherwise. Clothing was part of being civilized and a value of modesty tied very intimately to Christian religion and the Biblical standard.
Wolves in Sheep’s Skin
Some clothing is dishonest.
A disguise.
In order to gain acceptance and trust (going back to group identity and belonging) some will wear a costume of something they do not represent to gain trust And the “wolves in sheep’s skin” have infiltrated every conservative institution in this nation and turned them into a propaganda tool of godless empire.
Take Matt Schlapp, for example, the present chairman of American Conservative Union—also the first ever paid chair of Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) where he received a modest $600,000 in annual compensation—and an additional $175,000 for his wife on top of that. All while he has faced multiple allegations of groping men when he’s out drinking. One of the accusers—who had publicly apologized for the “misunderstanding”—was also quietly paid off (by a insurance company that represents ACU) to the tune of $480,000! More recently he got a little too touchy-feely with men at a Virginia bar. This is your conservative leadership.
Beinart: “We know that if the U.S. and Israel had not attacked a country that poses no serious threat to them—Israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons, America has thousands—that those girls would be alive…”
Schlapp: “They’d be alive in a burqa … this is … a barbaric society…”
Morgan: “hang on.”
[The conversation continues…]
Schlapp: “It’s hypocritical to say that these attacks harmed women and children when those women and children, the young girls that you reference, would be … live a life in a barbaric, unequal society behind a burqa, with no ability to make career choices…”
Uygur: “So just kill them?”
Schlapp: “No, that’s not what I’m saying either…”
Uygur: “That is what you said…”
While Schlapp apologists will claim that their accused man-groping ‘conservative’ was not actually saying what he seemed to be saying—it is abundantly clear that this was trying very hard to minimize a horrific slaughter.
Where do you even start?
Schlapp is directing his appeal to people who hate feminism and yet desperately want to get one over on their evil ‘liberal’ women by their disingenuously siding against ‘the patriarchy’ to justify murder? Either that or he’s a closeted leftist who hates women and religion so much that ridding the world of a school full of youngsters indoctrinated to believe that his unconsenting grabs of male parts is a sin feels right to him?
I won’t pretend to know what goes on in the twisted moral rot of this man’s mind, but as one who is friends with traditional women (Christian and Muslims) who do wear a veil his take is appalling. It would be equivalent to a feminist saying—“Well, at least those Amish girls killed at Nickel Mines will be spared a life of oppression speaking PA Dutch, getting married and working around the house!” What total horse shit. Women are as happy in traditional cultures are they are in any other—maybe even happier—the “happiness paradox” refers to the increase in female financial independence which has corresponded directly with decrease in happiness.
Sure, Schlapp does not come right out and say they’re better off dead. But what is he saying? What is he implying?
There this insane level of arrogance, which is reflected in Schlapp’s statement, of these people just assume that people who do not look exactly like them—share their cultural values, religious traditions or political perspectives—are better off dead. It is just plain bigoted nonsense.
The top picture is of Iranian women in a hijab. The bottom is Afghan women in burkas.
Furthermore, showing his ignorance, Iranian women don’t wear the burqa. They wear a hijab. It’s a detail that likely doesn’t matter to his MAGA target audience. And yet this is a huge difference. The burqa covers an entire face, it is more common with Sunnis (Saudi Arabia), and not required by Iranian law. The hijab, by contrast, doesn’t cover a face, it is a hair covering that is very similar to what Christian women wore for centuries before the society liberalized. Sure, maybe it shouldn’t be mandated, but it’s as Biblical as the Ten Commandments:
Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.
(1 Corinthians 11:4-6 NIV)
Incidentally, it is this passage above which makes it so strange that so many ‘Christian’ (Zionist) Presidents and public officials will wear a hat while praying and kissing a wall—deliberately dishonoring Christ. But more to the point, is this a “barbaric” practice? Is religious headgear, a Nun’s habit, some kind of terrible evil which totally excuses blowing up an elementary school?
Or is there something else going on here?
One of these is an Orthodox Christian the other is Mike Huckabee.
This is as much moral inversion as anything from the ‘woke’ left. We kill to save?
Furthermore, for all this talk about career choice, Iran graduates a significantly higher percentage of females in STEM fields than Israel or the US. So, in response to that part of Schlapp’s absurd statement: What are the career choices Iranian women are currently unable to make? Is he talking about OnlyFans?
Which woman is liberated? The one using her brains or the one displaying her body?
If we’re such great defenders of feminity, so much so that we can dictate to sovereign states what standards of decency they can or cannot have, why haven’t there been any Epstein client arrests?
Phony Fat Cracker Barrel Conservatives
The Schlapp types, neo-con Zionists, aren’t conservative at all. Sure, they always wrap themselves in Christian identity, but they’re not peacemakers, they feed prejudices and promote endless war that has cost trillions of dollars as well as millions of lives around the world. They will fein concern for Iranian rights in one breath then promote bombing the country into oblivion in the next.
They exploit jingoistic sentiment in the beer gut football crowd who (in their lack of Christian character) confuse toughness and masculinity with excessive violence. Every problem is solved with a gun or a bomb for them. This phony ‘conservativism’ of these war-mongering empire building neo-cons is antithetical to Christianity—it is anti-Christ and one part of their Epstein-class campaign to dismantle American values.
The Republican elites are as totally opposed to traditional American values as the Democrats—they just need our conservative votes.
The Cracker Barrel conservatives—people who get riled up over a change in corporate kitsch—enable these cultural vandals. The religious right talks incessantly about every tempest in a teapot controversy and then go mute when the Trump administration has worked overtime to protect billionaire pedophiles. These are the type that Jesus had called out for their straining on gnats and swallowing camels. They have no principles other than vote for the ‘red’ team on election day because we can’t let ‘blue’ team ‘liberals’ win—they imagine themselves as defenders of Western civilization yet will put their weight behind an oppressive regime if it is dressed right according to their own partisan fashion.
What’s important? The 4th and 5th Amendments or saving old-timey corporate kitsch?
They side against our own dissidents, make fun of Renee Good who was killed by ICE agents shouting conflicting orders, say Alex Pretti deserved getting shot in the back for being a guy who intervened when a woman was being assaulted, and then suddenly do a complete reversal to express moral outrage when Saleh Mohammadi, 19, was executed after a trial for murder of two police officers. The same people who can justify the deaths of 175 innocent children as “part of war,” are siding with an accused and convicted cop killer? What a mindless propaganda-blinded and flip-flopping lot—we’re living in a scene from 1984.
The same people who justify the killing of Good and Pretti defend an Iranian wrestler convicted of the murder of two police officers.
Trump wrapping himself in a flag (literally) is all it took. All he needs to do is hold up a Bible, hand out a few signed copies of the Bible for the MAGA faithful, and suddenly he’s the next thing to Jesus in the Evangeli-con pantheon. His aggression becomes integrity, his lewdness honesty, and arrogance a virtue. And he is aware, see how Trump described the cult’s devotion during the run up to his first term: “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters, OK?”
Trump is a manifestation of cultural rot, we celebrate immodesty and excess. The book of Philippians describes some who profess faith as the “enemies of the cross of Christ” (3:18) and proceeds to warn, “Their destiny is destruction, their god is their stomach, and their glory is in their shame” and “their mind is set on earthly things.” And this is our American consumerism. We see ourselves as the heroes, as representing freedom and democracy, when we’re really Egypt and Sodom (oppressor and corruption) cloaked in a pretense of righteousness.
We could use a bit of modesty. A moment of introspection and self-awareness.
Reclaiming American Christian Values
The U.S. has never been the “shining city on the hill” envisioned in John Winthrop’s 1630 sermon and highlighted by Ronald Reagan.
The aspiration.
Moral excellence is certainly a great goal even if we fall short. However, it is an aim which requires repentance. There are many things for this American nation should want to turn from. The ethnic cleansing of native populations, the institution of slavery, many wars of aggression and expansion—there is no purity here.
The U.S. has, if anything been exceptionally violent—from massacres in North America to the brutal occupation of the Philippines to the millions killed across the world as a result of aggressive policies—this country has never ceased in wars for control over resources. This conquest, sold to the public as some kind of moral mission or “Manifest Destiny,” was to conceal greed and a desire for things not ours to have.
There is no special American exception to the Christian requirement that all repent of their sins. That’s a starting point to the U.S. being great. To be truly great the goal is not to turn back the past mistakes, but turning away from them.
We should consider both bad and good examples from the past as a basis for improvement in the present.
This takes humility, not hubris.
The sin at the root of all moral pretense and posturing is pride—the very first sin, the one that changed Lucifer from God’s second in command into the father of lies. Pride tells us our culture, our politics, and our ways are just superior. Pride is what lets us dress up in sheep’s clothing of “conservative values” while living like wolves. Pride is what lets Matt Schlapp (or any of the other neo-con grifters) lecture on liberation while his own hands grope men in the dark and his mouth justifies the slaughter of schoolgirls. Pride is what lets the Cracker Barrel crowd wave a Bible one minute—rant against abortion, feminism, wokeism—only to cheer endless war and merciless bombings in the next, ignoring the plank in their own eye.
Christian conservatism worthy of the name begins with the opposite of pride: humility. It begins with the recognition that we are not owed respect—we must show it first. Just as modesty in clothing is not about shame but about protecting what is sacred, a respect of what is God’s, so too is respect in every other sphere. You do not demand entrance to another man’s house, another nation’s culture, or another woman’s dignity by force. Traditional modest dress of the past was never “oppression.” It was armor. It was just a public declaration: “I belong to something higher than my appetites. I will respect and you will respect me.”
The same principle applies to foreign policy, to political leadership, to every claim of “American exceptionalism.” An authentic conservatism does not bomb a school to “free” the girls inside it. It does not wrap imperial greed in the language of feminism or democracy. It does not make demands with threats of violence. Rather it says, with the Apostle Paul, “Let your gentleness be evident to all” (Phil 4:5) and “If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone” (Rom 12:18).
Principled Christian conservatism is not a costume. It is not red hats, Cracker Barrel nostalgia, or trillion-dollar defense contracts dressed up as patriotism. It is living a life of repentance. It is about mutual respect. It is the refusal to celebrate pride in any form—whether of immodesty, the aggressive “grab ’em by the pussy” arrogance of entitled men or just indifference about how our actions impact others. It is discipline of protecting what should be protected and also refusing to sacrifice our values for expediency.
If we want to belong to the Body of Christ then we must wear the right uniform code: humility, not hubris; respect, not ridicule; modesty, not exceptionalism. We must stop pretending America is already righteous or beyond reproach and start acting humbly like the sinners we are. Only then will we ever regain the respect we have lost. Only then will our clothing—literal and spiritual—actually protect instead of provoke.
More imperial “forever war” for the benefit of the Epstein-class.
Let the attire of our attitude preach truth: we are fragile, we are fallen, and the only safety worth having comes from walking in fear of the Lord, not by military might. That is the conservatism worth conserving—the repentance that can make us an example in the world and is the actual foundational basis of Christian civilization.
Schlapp says that Iran is a “barbaric culture” for dress standards different from our own and that bombing them is about defense of civilization. But a principled conservative is about consistent rules, true impartiality and no favoritism. It doesn’t decide if cop killers (or killer cops) are heroes or an attack on us all according to political needs. A civilized person seeks coherence and harmony, not unpredictability, brutality and dominance. It prefers local control and respects sovereign space of others. It gains a position through competency, not by trickery and deception, nor by threats and coercion.
Christian civilization rejects use of violence and notions of blood guilt. All must clothe themselves in the righteousness of Jesus—a clothing that we put on through Baptism, not our birth or bloodline:
For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
(Galatians 3:26-29 KJV)
We replace lying with truth, maliciousness with kindness, fury with forgiveness, theft with generosity and are told “to put on the new self” and with this to be “created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness” (Eph 4:22–32, Col 3:5–14) John Chrysostom (c. AD 347—407) described this putting on of Christ as “never to be forsaken of Him, and His always being seen in us through our holiness, through our gentleness”
Civilization may need to be qualified. We want Christian civilization, not an Old Testament violence reenactment.
We must reject the perversion of those who promote moral inversion where killing is an act of liberation and a society where more women graduate with STEM degrees called “barbaric” by the Epstein-class.
Schlapp’s depraved reasoning is a symptom of arrogance, not righteousness. If Jesus is our Lord, then we should be clothed in humility and a gentle example rather than a force of fury or violence.
The militarism of neo-cons is not the armor of God—it is a false protection—we need the attitude of repentance.
************************
Postscript: The point of this essay isn’t to defend the Islamic Republic of Iran. I have no doubts about it being a very brutal and intolerant regime. I also don’t write this as a strong advocate of modesty standards. But only to promote introspection about what we excuse and condemn. In one breath we are outraged by an execution in Iran, in the next we ignore the bombing of children in Gaza, Lebanon, and Iran. The same people who decry liberalism in the West celebrate the leftists in the East. This isn’t only about other people. This is also about me. After warning about Trump in 2014, I voted for the narcissist three times. He promised he would drain the swamp, to end the forever wars, and release the Epstein files. It was when he tried to gaslight about continued interest in Epstein that I realized I had been had. What I will say in my defense is that it wouldn’t be much improvement to vote for team blue. Kamala Harris couldn’t think of anything she would have done differently than Joe Biden. She shushed those trying to bring attention to the Gaza genocide and the Democrat party establishment has been as warlike as the Republicans despite their constituents. I must concede that we will not vote ourselves out of this. Society must change. True devotion to the base Christian principles—where Jesus is way more than a bobblehead on the dashboard of empire. If we want to change the world we need to lead by example rather than by force. The people of the world easily see through our facade, our oblivious talk of freedom and democracy, they see Egypt and Sodom.
Recently, in remarks defending his aggression, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—quoted historian Will Durant to declare “history proves that, unfortunately and unhappily, Jesus Christ has no advantage over Genghis Khan” because if you are strong enough, ruthless enough, powerful enough, evil will overcome good and aggression will overcome moderation—laid bare a stark moral inversion.
In this view, the teachings of Jesus represent a path of weakness, losing, while the conqueror’s ruthlessness ensures survival. The modern state of Israel, in its actions and rhetoric, often seems to embody this reversal of means: where the New Testament calls for love, the response is enmity; where it urges mercy, the strategy is application of overwhelming force; where Jesus promises a blessing to the meek, Israeli’s power is pursued through dominance.
If the Gospel says to love your neighbor, policies build barriers and displace. If Jesus commands turning the other cheek, retaliation escalates. If it blesses peacemakers, the calculus becomes one of preemptive attacks over moderation. And the Sermon on the Mount teaching and example of Jesus is treated not as a blueprint for life but as a cautionary tale for losers—nice ideals unfit for a world where barbarians crash the gates unless you become the stronger barbarian first.
Many professing Christians appear to accept this pragmatic dismissal of their Lord’s teachings in the “real world,” but I believe those teachings—if sincerely and universally applied by the faithful—would bring profound benefit even to ordinary people caught in wars, the soldiers and civilians alike.
But how would this look in practice?
I decided to arrange the teaching of the Gospel into a series of logical gates on a pathway of escalation-reversal which will lead to a new systemic reality:
A. Repentance: The Changing of Our Own Individual Perspective
1) The Golden Rule (Empathy): We must see things from our ‘enemies’ perspective. Why are they actually doing what they’re doing? This is a step that requires looking past propaganda and prejudice to find the grievance, then stop to think how we would respond if we were facing similar circumstances and then adjust accordingly. If we don’t want our own city bombed—then the logic of bombing theirs will immediately collapse.
2) Loving Your Enemies (Humanization): If we start to see a neighbor in our opponent rather than some negative label (terrorist, liberal, rats, etc) we’ll be less inclined to be in favor of just incinerating them and their families. This makes us more immune to the wartime propaganda that caricatures and demonizes opponents as being something less than us. Love is to see them as being human rather than aliens. The ‘enemy’ is someone’s brother, uncle, husband, father or friend—can you at least love those harmed by violence against them?
B. Restraint: Being Deliberate Rather Than Reactionary
3) Turn the Other Cheek (Non-retaliation): This is the one that goes most against us and probably where I would get the most resistance from Evangeli-cons. At the very least it is prudent to count the cost of the response in kind (Luke 14:28-33) and ask if we can afford to go down the path of tit-for-tat violence. A tactical pause can be beneficial if only to avoid a trap. Many believe that the path to dominance is by meeting every provocation with an aggressive response. But this may be exactly what the other side anticipated; they expect you to flail wildly, overextend, and give them the opportunity to expose your true character to others. There is special power in non-response—employment of a Machiavellian strategy of not letting others set your tempo—to stay in control and dominate on another level.
4) Putting Away the Sword (Disarmament): Saber-rattling is a go-to intimidation tactic, the idea of putting on displays of military prowess to deter an opponent. However it does not usually work as a long-term plan. If you wave a gun in someone’s face you’ll be more likely to start an arms race. People don’t like to be humiliated. Drawing a weapon will create a feedback loop that may truly only increase the threat. The U.S. war machine dropped nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the thinking this would back down the Soviets—it only led Stalin to prioritize the building of their own nuclear deterrence.
C. Try a Little Diplomatic Engagement
5. Overcome Evil with Good (Reframe the Conversation): Dropping bombs is fun. It can be very satisfying to see those who we have been led to believe’deserve it’ squirm under pressure. But this is a path of mutual destruction. It makes a whole lot more sense to turn the competitor into a partner with a peace offering: “Hey, so we are sorry we overthrew your democratic government to help BP steal your oil—here is the money we owed you from that defense contract which fell through!” It is difficult to harbor ill will towards someone who is actively doing nice things for you. War is expensive.
6. The Peacemaker (Mediator): It is much easier to stay on the sidelines or to take a side. Everyone says they want peace, to avoid wars, and yet few are willing to build the bridge. As the saying goes “if there’s a will there’s a way” and making peace is a matter of will. It may take a little extra effort and risk, yet peace pays dividends. War is a very costly affair both in terms of men and material—finding a way to unravel a conflict before it blows up is a win-win for all but those war profiteers
D. Mission Accomplished: Building a New Reality
7. Ministry of Reconciliation (Restoration): The ultimate goal of all the above is not only to get to a “ceasefire” or ending of the current war, but to a “Shalom” which is to say a bonding into a whole of the various factions. We want to end all war by marrying the two-halves of the conflict to make something better. The Japanese and Americans are far better off exchanging money for minivans than trading munitions. So maybe if we spent as much money pursuing these favorable outcomes, as we did to support the bloated Department of War (or Defense) we would finally reach those better ends we claim to seek despite our never fully investing?
The Tremendous Benefit of Learning From Past Mistakes.
When I was younger and dumber I believed a lot of the propaganda put in front of me. Iraq was a threat. Despite having nothing to do with 9/11—an attack by citizens of our own allies—Saddam Hussain was spun into the real threat. Despite a promise back then of “tremendous benefits” from the same man mocking Jesus today—the results were 4,492 U.S. military deaths, with over 32,000 wounded, and an overall cost of approximately three trillion dollars.
For sake of reference, gas in 2002 cost $1.36 per gallon—we now pay $3.91 and will only see that continue to rise as the onslaught continues. Is this truly the “winning, winning, winning” that we’ve heard Netanyahu advertise?
If we had taken out the path of endless war back then, I guarantee you that it would have had enormous positive reverberations in the region… but instead we did the opposite, and look what happened.
We believed removing Saddam would topple tyrants and spark democracy like dominoes—yet it unleashed chaos, empowered Iran, birthed ISIS, cost trillions, and left generations scarred. I’ve seen the soldiers who returned maimed. The ‘positive reverberations’ turned into shockwaves of suffering that echoed for decades.
So today, let’s finally learn the lesson from our history: aggression doesn’t guarantee victory; it often only guarantees the next war. The real tremendous benefit comes not from more bombs and regime changes, but from our repentance, restraint, and reconciliation—from applying the very teachings we too often set aside.
If we invert the escalation instead of the Gospel, perhaps the region—and the world—will finally see some true positive reverberations: peace that lasts, neighbors who humanize each other, and a Shalom worth guaranteeing.
The costs of war are enormous. There are no winners in war. Even if your side comes out ‘victorious’ it is a drain of a nation’s blood and treasure. That’s the real picture, the real result, and we will be the ones bearing the increased burden. The U.S. debt has gone from being 3.55 trillion dollars in 2002 to $39.05 trillion and not slowing down. A big chunk of that is the bill for endless war. So maybe for Netanyahu there’s “enormous positive reverberations” because it didn’t cost him a dime, but the reality is that we have lost reputation—the little that remains of Christian witness and confidence that we once had to manage world affairs. The Petrodollar and, with it, exorbitant privilege—which gave us the economic advantages that made us a global superpower. And maybe this loss of prestige is by design? Israel has benefitted at our great expense.
Many Americans want death to Iranian people. The phrase used by protestors of US imperialism was specifically aimed at the regime that endlessly harassed their people, at policies and not people. They blamed the regime of billionaires and politicians who rule over us.
The biggest lie of this century is that abandoning the way of Jesus is our most realistic option. The truth is that we’re sacrificing our future with the false idea that our security depends on us killing all who oppose the same tyranny we experience every taxseason when we pay for all the bombs that rain on Gaza. Our actions are going to have immeasurable consequences.
Dismiss this if you like. Side with the antithesis of Christ and say that it is totally unrealistic. But why pray, hypocritically, “Thy will on Earth as it is in heaven” while then simultaneously plotting to wipe out those we’re expressly told to love? I’m not saying this is easy, and yet this is simply part and parcel of a religion that teaches you will be forgiven as you forgive and judged as you judge. I’m convinced if we work our way down this list—taking care of first things first—we could have what seems impossible.
Originally I had planned a blog on fostering unity between races based on mutual respect. Instead my attention was shifted to the war launched by Israel and the United States against Iran.
I suppose that is how Satan works, he creates chaos, destroys our focus, and undermines the good we intend to do? The hope of peaceful resolution and stability were wiped away by yet another ‘preemptive strike’ Pearl-Harbor-style surprise attack which this time has finally killed the elderly Shiite cleric.
Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, along with several members of his family, including his daughter and granddaughter, were killed in this violent opening assault. President Trump and administration officials—along with many other Americans—celebrate this as a big triumph. They don’t seem to understand that martyrdom plays right into the narrative of the Islamic Republic. What better way to prove that the US is led by a totally violent and lawless regime than to kill an 86-year-old man who said this in a speech before his death:
My body holds little value, my life bears no significance. Even if they kill me, do not count it as our loss as long as you remain steadfast on the principles of Imam Hussain (AS). We are winning this war as long as we do not bow before dictators, before power and greed, as long as we uphold the ideals of Imam Hussain.
And if immortalizing Ali Khamenei was not enough, for good measure the US struck a girl’s school in their initial salvo. Images of bloodied backpacks and those awful stories of scattered limbs of children—175 innocent lives in just one strike—are justified as “collateral damage” (or just denied) here. But this will only serve as a rallying call similar to “never forget” after 9/11 (when Sunnis from Saudi Arabia attacked us) or “remember the Alamo” is in US folklore. And you really can’t get a starker contrast between the hubris of the Zionist regime—along with our own self-indulgent child raping Epstein-class—and a man who offered himself as a symbol of values bigger than his own life.
Iran has long had the technical capability to make a nuclear weapon. But Ali Khamenei had upheld the fatwa against the development calling it un-Islamic. The “imminent threat” claims are really no different from the false WMD excuse to invade Iraq in 2003. Iran posed no threat to the US even if nuclear armed. They lack a delivery vehicle to even hit Europe—let alone strike a city in the US. But what is abundantly clear is that Iran does strongly oppose the ethnic cleansing of West Bank and the Gaza genocide—and is the one regime Israel could not buy off or intimidate into silence and inaction.
Precious Zahra Mohammadi Golpayegani with her grandfather.
Iran’s religious leaders have appointed Mojtaba Khamenei as their new Supreme Leader. This is the son of the late Ali, and a man who also lost his wife Zahra Haddad-Adel, his mother, son, sister, a niece and a nephew in the ‘successful’ opening strike. It isn’t hard to imagine that this makes it all very personal to him. The US/Israel have just removed the very man who prevented the final assembly of a nuclear weapon and Iran replaced him with a man who has every reason to get vengeance. There’s no sense in negotiation to bring a temporary end, like last time, when they know they will just face another attack?
There Are No Good Guys—All Are Bad
I have an Iranian friend, very liberal, hates the Islamic Republic for basically the same reason she hates Donald Trump—she is a “down with the patriarchy” feminist who sees ‘red’ America similar to what she does the regime back home. And I believe her when she claims that tens of thousands of people were killed. She prefers Iran to have a secular government—and couldn’t care less about non-Persian people being slaughtered in Gaza.
MAGA only supports Iran’s feminists—millions of women protested Trump.
But it is funny when the exact same people who justified the killing of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, even make a joke of it, suddenly are showing solidarity with the far-leftists of another country who rose in defiance of the authorities there. Americans who would 100% be okay with BLM protesters being ran over for standing on public roads and love Trump’s no-mercy stance towards those who do not meet their standards would cheer if the blue haired leftists were gunned down here—and say they got what they deserved for defying the law and law enforcement.
That is why I do not buy into the narrative of it being about “freedom and democracy” for the Iranian people. No, this is about the US and Israel imposing their imperial will using any means possible. The CIA and Mossad have been plotting a counter-revolution for as long as the Islamic Republic has existed and at the cost of many lives. John McCain openly endorsed a terrorist organization in Iran, Mojahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), responsible for thousands of Iranian deaths, and even my leftist Iranian friend was horrified when the late war-monger said this group should rule over her country.
Imagine if a Chinese official gave a shout out to North Korean operatives “walking beside” a violent insurrection in the US?
The Zionists (Likud party terrorists and their Evangeli-con counterparts) do not care the slightest bit about democratic values. If they did they would be totally opposed to the Gulf State dictatorships and monarchies. They would be speaking passionately about regime change in Saudi Arabia—where women have less rights than they do in Iran. But they don’t. So long as a brutal regime favors Zionist regional hegemony it can basically do anything to its own people—which is why I do not share the jubilation of my Iranian friend over the death of the man she views as an oppressor.
If the Islamic Republic falls it will be a “meet the new boss, same as the old boss” where maybe the progressives can wear less clothes or get to have a Pride parade in Tehran some day, while merely opposing genocide by Israel will get them yanked off the street and tortured. It will mean tens of thousands of children die in Gaza unopposed by world governments.
You do not free people by bombing them into oblivion. It’s insane how fast our ruling elites go from “I support the Iranian people” to days later announcing intent to “inflict punishment” when most in Iran choose to respect their own leaders instead of rebel on behalf of Israel and the US.
The reality is that this war is about who will control the region and resources of Iran, not a humanitarian mission. Will or consent of the Iranian people matters very little to our elites who make others die for them. The US and Israel have brutally bombed anyone who opposed their imperialism. The body count from the US wars post-1948 is somewhere between 8.25 to 11.8 million dead. For scale, this is enough killed to fill 77 to 110 of the largest college football stadiums. The vast majority of the war dead—from Korea to Gaza—the primary victims non-combatants and children.
We flattened North Korea, destroyed almost everything, and then wondered why they wouldn’t welcome us as liberators?!?
It is crazy we’re still talking about October 7th as if that excuses the devastation that the IDF inflicted on Gaza. We remember 9/11 (not remembering who called it “good” or that Iran had nothing to do with it) yet we forget the 290 killed by the US Navy in 1988, the dozens of scientists assassinated over the years the 436 confirmed civilian deaths from the Twelve-Day War. In the current US and Israel assault there have been 1,225—1,348 civilians slaughtered so far. For the sake of reference, approximately 828 of the victims of the October 7th attack were civilian and a significant portion of them were likely killed by panicked Israeli security forces.
The US—Israel have attacked 40 countries since 1948. Over the same period Iran has been defending itself from invasion, they’ve endured their key figures being murdered at home or abroad, and have only fired at the Gulf States who are hosting US-bases that aid the current assault on their sovereignty. It is unfathomable distortion that fighting back is being portrayed as aggression and surprise attack called defensive. Yes, Iran helps the axis of resistance, Hamas and Hezbollah, and yet Mossad and the CIA have operated inside Iran leading revolts.
Trump and war propagandists are claiming that Iran has been at war with us since 1979, and yet if you consider that it all started with the CIA removing a secular democratic leader in 1953 (for his daring to believe that Iran’s oil belonged to Iran) can we really say that? We were at war with Iran’s people at the behest of BP, installed the Shah who ran a brutal dictatorship, then we encouraged Iraq to invade after their revolution and even provided chemical weapons to Saddam Hussain to use against them. Iran, in that war, suffered at least 200,000 combat deaths. This all a direct result of US policies.
The US—Israeli foreign policy is blood-drenched and at least as evil as any other in the world. An honest person must be able to acknowledge this rather than pretend they are pure as wind-driven snow because they say so.
The Flaw of Good Versus Evil Narratives
People quickly fall into binary thinking. We want two simple categories. We prefer liberals versus conservatives, Republicans or Democrats, good guys and bad guys—and the falsely dichotomous framings of narratives. Why? Well, making it all black and white, ignoring the true color or stripes of reality, this simply requires far less effort and depth of knowledge. Why do good analysis when you can just believe they all need to be destroyed for peace to be possible?
But this is not a Gospel framework. Jesus frequently insulted his ethno-supremacist religious peers by sharing contrary stories about good Samaritans, and commending foreign enemies for having a faith that was beyond that of all Israel—specifically the Canaanite woman and Roman centurion. He also brought up the foreign widow who helped Elijah and the people of Nineveh as well, and all as part of a rebuke of an ethno-supremacist religious crowd that eventually killed him for his never letting them off the hook for their own evil pride and complete lack of repentance.
Fundamental attribution error is common—we make exemptions for ourselves or our own, while then assuming that negative actions of ‘others’ originate from an immutable character flaw only solved by their death. There is this great quote of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn to help explain a different perspective:
The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either — but right through every human heart — and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. And even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained.
The thought isn’t original to Solzhenitsyn, he’s paraphrasing St Paul:
For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.
(Ephesians 6:12 NIV)
In both cases it is reframing the problem as being spiritual and external to a dividing line within ourselves. Rather than seeing the world as being our absolutely righteous side versus a bunch of irredeemable demons, we should turn first to look inward and consider that beam in our own eyes. If our own heart is full of hate, and we are wanting to see others judged, are we truly being merciful as our Father is merciful? No, and we invite judgment without mercy because of our judgement without mercy:
Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment.
(James 2:12-13 NIV)
So how does this apply to the current war against Iran?
It means we recognize the unmerciful attitudes of those who claim to be forgiven and yet do not forgive others as Christ commanded. It means we see when we’re being encouraged to box others into a corner over the group they belong to (or we put them in) and judge them wholesale—as we exempt ourselves or our own from the same moral standard we have applied.
The US/Israel is led by a haughty spirit, this idea of our moral superiority and right to impose by any means, which is opposite anything we see in Scripture.
Once we stop assuming that everyone who fights us is just evil and cease believing that the US is just a faultless defender of the planet, there will finally be a possibility of a rational conversation that leads to peaceful resolution. No, the Iranian regime isn’t the “good guys” and yet nor are we.
I realize that a blog like this will not sway the religiously indoctrinated excited that the US is holy war against “America’s mortal enemy” that has supposedly waged a “savage, one-sided war against America” (see: Israel) and yet there’s plenty of reason to reflect on the evil we have done. It’s amazing how fast we forget the coup we orchestrated, the chemical weapons we provided, the airlines shot down, the Gaza genocide and other aggression against the Iranians and population of this region.
The real tragedy lies in the binary thinking that paints entire nations or regimes as irredeemable evil while simultaneously excusing our excesses. As Solzhenitsyn observed, the dividing line of good and evil slices through every human heart, not between borders or ideologies. And Scripture echoes this: our struggle isn’t against flesh and blood, but spiritual forces—and mercy triumphs over merciless judgment.
Until we confront the beam in our own eye, and reject the haughty notion of our exceptionalism, and demand accountability from all powers (our own included), these cycles of vengeance and “collateral” horror will persist, burying more innocents and any hope for genuine peace. The call isn’t to pick a team—it’s to choose humility, mercy, and truth over the easy comfort of demonizing the “other.”
Postscript: Terrorism or a Human Response?
One last thing to reflect on. The Temple Israel synagogue was attacked by Ayman Mohamed Ghazali and will no doubt be used to promote this idea of Muslims being evil savages. But then consider that last week his two brothers (Kassim and Ibrahim) along with a niece and nephew (Ali and Fatima) were killed in an Israeli air strike in Lebanon’s Beqaa Valley. The synagogue he ran his vehicle into and opened fire on hosts Friends of the FIDF events and has raised funds for the benefit of the institution that slaughtered his loved ones. When you understand ‘terrorism’ in that context, of a man wracked with grief and not having hope of justice—is he evil or just a human with the same feelings we would have if a foreign country killed our loved ones?
Victims of IDF terror bombing
What do you really expect them to do? Roll over and let us do whatever we want with impunity?
Parents create barriers for their children to keep them from harm. A toddler sees this wonderful world without consequences—whereas a parent understands danger lurks. The little hands reach almost involuntarily, without a concept of poison or pain, speaking desire “let me grab, let me hold, let me taste.”
Some parents will go as far as to invent the Boogyman as a reason why not venture too far given a child’s lack of ability to grasp the more complex monsters of the chaos that exists in all directions going beyond the extremely controlled environment of their home and community—protecting their innocence.
For two days in a row I had a dream featuring enormous snakes on a shoreline. Details have become murky, but in both of these episodes the real breathing monsters morphed into stylized symbols of the creature. Were these reel beasts subdued? Or, making this an allegory, has our modern life just so thoroughly shielded us from these elements that they no longer appear as real?
It makes me think of those medieval maps with sea monsters on the edges. These did not simply represent mythological peril. There was serious danger in venturing too far from the familiar coastlines. Ships swallowed whole, entire crews disappeared without a trace, it could be storms, savages, and unspeakable things of the deep. The seafarer was given a warning in these symbols—this place is an uncharted water enter at risk of all.
I’ve deliberately, a few years ago, charted a course beyond those safe moorings of my religious cloister. It wasn’t out of a sense of adventure. Nor was it all pleasant. It was half tumbling into space without a tether; the other half sailing around the world and finally find love and meaning in a place that had been forbidden.
The Boogeyman vanquished, but now a real evil staring back from the darkness. It’s the snake in the garden—hidden amongst those fruit trees—as well as that which exist in the world beyond Eden. It is the sound of those children screaming while burned alive while the world watches in silence. The thousand horrors never called a Holocaust.
My taste of this ‘real’ came years ago with a sudden death. Saniyah passing left me no choice but to stare into the void. It was not that I had expected her to live forever. But it was just that theory doesn’t prepare us for a soul crushing tragedy. I managed to finally bury it back down, this existential dread, yet the snake always lurks on the edge, within, and throughout. Denial doesn’t make it go away even if it provides small comfort.
Childhood is ideally a time of protection to give a chance for growth. But there are the ones who live a charmed life who can still believe a logic of bad things only happen to bad people or simply have maintained a big enough separation from themselves to this awfulness to be temporarily safe. However, for most there will be a reckoning the being a moment that knocks off those rose tinted glasses and allows them to finally question the foundations of their world.
Faith is easy until you’re Job staring at the ruins of all you built, dreams shattered, and a pain of loss you can’t put into words. One blessing we have is our forgetfulness. If we can power through the mourning phase, the excruciation of limb torn from body, facing a pit of emptiness, then we can rebuild and move on. Unless you’re my grandpa (facing the end of his life without any of the people who brought him there—still more fortunate than those who never had children let alone great grandchildren), you’re life is still ahead of you if you keep your hope.
A mind is resilient, the soul remembers. I have clawed back from total devastation, reinvented myself, and yet come through all of it profoundly changed.
The question is what navigational charts do I give my children? We are on different seas now and those hazards I have survived are not relevant to them. They will face storms, things I can’t begin to imagine let alone prepare them to battle. Even things blogged here a decade ago do not apply to the current generation.
As I sit in this liminal space of life. My course set. I realize there is not one safe space on the map ahead, the serpents below the waves have not gone away from my mind—there’s evil that lurks among us, the uncertainty about tomorrow, and the reality of the dying of the light. We must go, wise, courageous to fight those monsters of the darkness all around.
No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
(Matthew 6:24 KJV)
This teaching popped into my mind a few weeks ago and while reflecting on where our morality has broken down in the United States. Mammon is an interesting Biblical word and refers to more than just money as currency. Jesus is not talking about having material wealth here, rather he’s addressing about misplaced trust and devotion put in it. And “serve” seems like a key operational word here. In Greek it is “douleuó” (δουλεύω) and the term refers to slavery or bondage.
Jesus was confronted on this teaching by the Pharisees—who we’re told sneered at him. But we are also told they were the same people who would shortchange their own parents by abusing the practice of ‘Corban’—by claiming money was set aside for God (Matt. 15:1-9, Mark 7:1-13)—when it was all about their own gain. When you’re addicted to material gain, you’d likely sell off your own mother for another hit of the money drug and can’t be a good person. A slave to the ‘almighty dollar’ will basically do any evil to obtain more of it.
For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it. But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that. Those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.
(1 Timothy 6:7-10 NIV)
Pray for contentment, not cash. You can have enough to eat and live without a big bank account. We may enjoy—or imagine—a feeling of security from having more, but it is false security and pursuit of it leads to moral compromise. As Mark 8:36 asks: “What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul?”
The American Evangelical landscape does not handle this very well. The ‘health and wealth” or prosperity gospel might not be openly preached in every church, but there’s often the underlying assumption that those who have money are blessed. I mean, you don’t want to ever offend those who fill the offering plate, do you?
This errant belief that material success equates to divine favor has seeped deeply into political alliances, particularly among Evangelicals who have thrown their support behind leaders promising them economic prosperity above all else. Donald Trump, with his gilded persona and “art of the deal” ethos, became a symbol of this worldview—tremendously blessed by wealth, endorsed by faith leaders, and appearing to be toualluntouchable.
Two of a kind…
Yet, as his second term unfolds, we’re now seeing how devotion to money over all else manifests in government—prioritizing billionaire gains over accountability and human suffering. It isn’t the paradise promised.
Life Under Bondi-age
One of the big reasons Trump had seemed like a better choice than a continuation of a Biden administration, under Harris, was his ‘green’ policies. He appeared to be a “make money, not war” candidate, given his history of draft dodging and no new war first term. Maybe it was just weariness of the conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine that made him a hope to the “it’s the economy, stupid” crowd. He also promised to release the Epstein files—which would mean some justice, right?
Attorney General Pam Bondi’s testimony to Congress is a revelation of a mentality that is completely detached. Who knows who coached her—or maybe it was completely her own idea? But the answers she gave only raised more eyebrows.
For example, when asked:
How many of Epstein’s co-conspirators have you indicted? How many perpetrators are you even investigating?
She replied:
Because Donald Trump, the Dow, the Dow right now is over — the Dow is over $50,000. I don’t know why you’re laughing. You’re a great stock trader, as I hear, Raskin. The Dow is over 50000 right now, the S&P at almost 7,000, and the Nasdaq smashing records. Americans’ 401(k)s and retirement savings are booming. That’s what we should be talking about. We should be talking about making Americans safe. We should be talking about — what does the Dow have to do with anything? That’s what they just asked. Are you kidding?
Is she kidding?
That’s astonishingly callous.
With victims in the crowd, she really thought it would play well to deflect with a pivot to a stock market highs?
Now, sure, this sort of hearing is a very partisan and high-pressure event. And a great many of those lawmakers are guilty of a cover-up as the Trump administration. Lest we forget it, around 80% to 90% of Epstein’s political donations went to Democrats. But now responsibility for the continued lack of transparency about this lies squarely on the Trump administration.
Bondi’s Justice Department has violated the law, The Epstein Files Transparency Act—a bill demanding the unredacted release of the files pushed through by representatives Thomas Massie (R) and Ro Khanna (D), by continued use of redactions that extends a cover-up that has gone on for decades. And both parties are neck-deep in this scandal, which is why nothing was done about it last administration despite Trump’s name being in the files tens of thousands of times—and probably many more mentions still hidden under all those black lines.
Remember when JD Vance sounded like Thomas Massie?
The administration that ran on a promise to tell the truth about Epstein has become one where Trump gaslights:
Are you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein? This guy’s been talked about for years, are people still talking about this guy? This creep? That is unbelievable. I can’t believe you’re asking a question on Epstein at a time like this, when we’re having some of the greatest success, and also tragedy with what happened in Texas. It just seems like a desecration.
I mean, why would we still be talking about a guy who was apparently sex trafficking a bunch of underage girls to a very long list of elites who have yet to be prosecuted, right?
The truth is a ‘desecration’ of Texas flooding response somehow?
Wherever the case, Bondi isn’t a fraction as skilled as her boss at this game. If you are going to pivot off a question about horrible sexual crimes and ritual abuse not leading to dozens of arrests, then at least deflect away to matters of an equal moral weight. As in this “We have arrested X amount of pedophiles, more than any administration since Genghis Khan—we’re making America safe again!” That would sound much less tone deaf than turning to the economy as if this nullifies questions about Epstein.
What does Bondi’s pivot scream?
It shouts that money can take her attention off of crime—that she can be bribed. More importantly, it suggests she thinks we will be distracted by money and forget about a total lack of prosecutions.
In the end, Bondi’s deflection and the Trump administration’s broader pattern reveals the stark truth: when mammon reigns supreme, justice for the vulnerable becomes optional, and the soul of a nation is quietly sold off in exchange for an economy that mostly benefits billionaires. True contentment—and true greatness or lasting gain—will never come from chasing a dollar or at expense of seeking justice for all people.
The crazy part is that most who voted for Trump thinking it would help their portfolio and would keep us out of war—will find out that those who bought him have no problem with sending your sons to die in Iran.
Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.
Marcus Aurelius
I will attempt to bring multiple threads together in this blog and the quote above is a good starting point. If there is objective reality it’s not going to be something possessed by one human. We do not know all circumstances nor can we vet and independently verify every fact we receive. Or at least not without becoming totally hamstrung by the details. We put our trust in parties, traditions, systems, credentials and the logic which makes sense to us.
The deeper we dive into our physical reality the murkier it all gets. The world ‘above’ that we encounter feels concrete. But there is not a whole lot of substance to be found as we get beneath the surface. The rules that we discovered—of time and space—end up dissolving into a sea of probabilities and paradoxes at a quantum level that we don’t have an answer to. And this is the ‘concrete’ observable reality. We all see our own unique perspective, a slice, and build our model of the world from it.
But it is even murkier when we get to topics of social science. Morality and ethics, built often from what we believe is fact or truth, is more simply opinion and perspective than it can be hammered out in words everyone is able to agree on. Even for those who are of the same foundational religious assumptions—despite even having the same source texts—do not agree on matters of interpretation or application. So who is right? And who is wrong? How do we decide?
1) Patrick: We Don’t Need God To Be Moral
My cousin, Patrick, a taller, better looking and more educated version of myself, an independent thinker, and has departed from his missionary upbringing—gives this great little presentation: “Where Do You Get Your Morality?“
His foundation for a moral value system is concepts of truth, freedom and love which he describes in the video. I find it to be compelling and compatible with my own basic views. Our cooperation is as natural as competition, it is what makes us human, and a conscience gives potential for better returns.
However, while I agree with his ideal, there is also reason why deception, tyranny and indifference are as common in the world—they are natural—and this is because it can give one person or tribe an advantage. Lies, scams, and political propaganda all exploit trust and can be a shortcut for gaining higher status or more access.
No, cheating doesn’t serve everyone. But the lion has no reason to regret taking down a slow gazelle. By removing the weak, sick, or injured, it inadvertently culls the less-fit genes from the herd, strengthening the prey population over time and even preventing overgrazing of the savannah. It’s just a raw service to ecosystem balance, much like a short seller who exposes those overvalued stocks, forcing the market corrections and greater efficiency—acts of pure self-interest yielding a broader good.
Not a friendly neighbor.
Herd cooperation or predator opportunism are different strategies, both 100% natural and amoral in their own context. I’m neither psychopath nor a cannibal, but I do suspect those who are those things would as readily rationalize their own drives and proclivities. Nature doesn’t come with a rulebook—only consequences.
I’m certainly not a fan of the “might makes right” way of thinking and that is because my morality and ethics originate from the perspective being disadvantaged. But I also understand why those who never struggled and who have the power to impose their own will without fear of facing any consequences often develop a different moral framework.
We need to be invested in the same moral and civilizational project. Or else logic, that works for only some who have the strength or propaganda tools, will rule by default. I don’t disagree with Patrick, but his core message caters to a high IQ and high empathy crowd—which does leave me wondering how we can bring everyone else on board?
2) Kirk: A Way To Focus Our Moral Efforts
Charlie Kirk wasn’t a significant figure to me before his death. It may be a generational thing or just a general lack of interest in the whole conservative influencer crowd. I feel dumber any time I listen to Steven Crowder and assumed Kirk was just another one of the partisan bomb throwers. But, from my exposure to his content since, I have gained some appreciation.
Bring back the Ten Commandments, because it worked so well the first time?
Arguing for the Ten Commandments has never been a priority for me. It’s a list with a context and not standalone. Nevertheless it is a starting point for a moral discussion and also one that it seems Charlie Kirk would go to frequently in his campus debates. The two most difficult of these laws to explain to a religious skeptic are certainly the first two: “I am the Lord your God; Have no other gods before me and do not make idols.”
We generally agree on prohibition of murder and theft, or even adultery, but will disagree on one lawgiver and judge.
Why?
Well, it is simply because divine entity is abstract compared to things we have experienced—like the murder of a loved one or something being stolen from us. You just know this is wrong based on how it makes you feel. The belief in celestial being beyond human sight or comprehension just does not hit the same way as events we have observed. And it’s also the baggage the concept of a God carries in the current age. I mean, whose God?
It seems to be much easier just to agree the lowest common denominator: Don’t do bad things to other people.
But then we don’t. We justify killing others if it suits our political agenda, labeling people as bad for doing what we would do if facing a similar threat to our rights. If I’ve learned one thing it is that people always find creative ways to justify themselves while condemning the other side for even fighting back against an act of aggression.
Self-proclaimed good people do very bad things to good people. Like most people see themselves as above average drivers (not mathematically possible), we tend to distort things in favor of ourselves. Fundamental attribution error means we excuse our own compromises as a result of circumstances while we assume an immutable character flaw when others violate us. We might be half decent at applying morality to others—but exempt ourselves and our own.
So morality needs a focal point beyond us as individuals. There must be a universal or common good. Which might be the value of a theoretical ‘other’ who observes from a detached and perfectly unprejudiced point, the ideal judge. Not as a placeholder, but as the ultimate aim of humanity. One God. One truth. One justice. This as the answer to double standards, selective outrage and partisan bias. If we’re all seeking the same thing there is greater potential of harmony and social cohesion where all benefit.
At very least it would be good to promote an idea of an ultimate consequence giver that can’t be bought or bribed.
3) The Good, the Bad and the Aim for What Is Practically Impossible
The devil is always in the details. And the whole point of government is to mediate in this regard. Unfortunately, government, like all institutions, is merely a tool and tools are only as good as the hands that are making a use of them. A hammer is usually used to build things, but can also be used to bash in a skull. Likewise, we can come up with that moral system and yet even the best formed legal code or enforcement mechanism can be twisted—definitions beaten into what the current ruling regime needs.
The United States of America started with a declaration including the words “all men are created equal” and a Constitution with that starts: “We the people…” This is reflection of the Christian rejection of favoritism and St. Paul telling the faithful “there is no Jew or Greek” or erasing the supremacy claims of some. An elite declaring themselves to be exempted or specially chosen by God is not compatible with this vision. We never ask a chicken for consent what we take the eggs. We do not extend rights to those who we consider to be inferior to us or less than human. Human rights hinge on respect for the other that transcends politics.
That’s where the labels come in. If we call someone a Nazi, illegal, MAGAt, leftist or a Goyim we are saying that they are less than human and don’t deserve rights. This is the tribal and identity politics baseline. Those in the out-group are excluded for decency, their deaths celebrated as justice (even if there’s no due process) and we’ll excuse or privilege our own. All sides of the partisan divide do this—we create a reason to deny rights to others often using things like truth, freedom and love (Patrick’s foundation) as our justification: “Those terrorists hate our freedom and democracy, we must fight for those we love and our truth!”
Bringing this to a practical level: Looking at Minneapolis, the ICE and anti-ICE activities, we have competing moral narratives and a different vision for application of American values. On one side of the debate you have those who say that “one is one too many” if an illegal immigrant kills a US citizen—then suddenly do not care when Federal agents shoot a fellow American. The defiant “don’t tread on me” opposition to mandates and masks during Covid somehow shifting to “comply or die!” On the other side you have those outraged about Kyle Rittenhouse and who have been traditionally opposed to the 2nd Amendment defending Alex Pretti while the Trump administration condemns a man for carrying a permitted firearm.
Judgment is for the other, it seems, rights for those who look like us or agree. It’s this inconsistent eye, the call for understanding of our own and grace for ourselves with the harsh penalties applied to those within the forever shifting lines of our out-group, that shows how our political perspectives cloud our moral judgment. The ‘sin’ is not the act itself, but whether or not the violation suits our broader agenda. This is why ‘Christian’ fundamentalists, who will preach the love of Jesus on Sunday, can be totally indifferent to the suffering of children with darker skin tones—their God is about national schemes not a universal good or a commonly applied moral standard.
The aim needs to be justice that is blind to who and only considers what was done. If pedophilia is excused for powerful people who run our government and economy, then it should be for those at the bottom as well. If the misdemeanor of crossing an invisible line is bad, a justification for suspension of due process for all Americans, then why is it okay to violate the sovereignty of Venezuela or Iran over claims of human rights abuse?
The US fought a war of independence, took the country for the British and yet has been acting as a dictator, installing kings, when it suits our neo-colonial elites.
That’s immoral.
We’re all immoral.
The moral code of Patrick, Charlie or myself is incomplete—because every moral code is incomplete when filtered through human eyes. We start from our different premises: Patrick’s secular triad of truth, freedom, and love; Kirk’s religious appeal to the Ten Commandments and a divine lawgiver as the only reliable check on self-deception; my own reluctant recognition that empathy and cooperation are real, yet fragile, against the raw arithmetic of power and advantage. Yet all of our approaches circle the same problem: without some external, impartial standard that transcends our biases, tribes, and self-justifications, our morality devolves into competing opinions dressed as facts—exactly as Aurelius observed.
We cannot fully escape the murk. Objective reality, if it exists, slips through our fingers like quantum probabilities—and moral truth fractures along lines of culture, experience, and interest. Even when we agree on broad principles (don’t murder, don’t steal), the application often splinters: whose life counts as being worthy of protection? Whose borders, laws, or children deserve a defense? And whose “justice” is merely revenge in better lighting?The temptation is cynicism—just declare all values relative, retreat to my own personal pragmatism, and then let might (or votes, or algorithms) sort the rest. But that is a path leads to the very outcomes we decry—dehumanization, selective outrage, and the erosion of the entire civilizational project that allows agnostic high-empathy and high-IQ arguments like Patrick’s to even exist. Yes, nature may be amoral, but us humans build societies by pretending otherwise, by our aiming higher than baser ‘animal’ instincts—reaching for God.
So perhaps the most honest conclusion is not to claim possession of the full truth, but to commit to pursuing it together—knowing we’ll never quite arrive. We definitely need focal points that force some accountability beyond ourselves: whether that’s a concept of one ultimate observer who sees without favoritism, or by a shared commitment to universal human dignity rooted in principle beyond biology or tribe, or simply just the hard-won habit of applying the same rules to our side as to the other. Blind justice isn’t natural or self-evident—it’s cultivated. Morality is an aim which requires vigilance against our own double standards, humility before the limits of our perspective, and courage to defend principles we claim even when they inconvenience us.
In the end, we don’t need perfect agreement on the source of morality to agree that inconsistency in application is poisonous. What goes around will certainly come around and if we live by the sword we’ll die by it. If we can at least hold each other (and ourselves) to a standard higher than “what works for my group right now,” preserve the space for mutually beneficial cooperation over cruel predation—a shared conscience over mere convenience. Anything less, and the gazelle never outruns the lion for long—and neither does the society which forgets why it tried.
AI is an exciting new tool—kind of like Wikipedia was back in the day, something fun to turn to for those quick answers. But let’s be clear: AI is NOT a replacement for actual research. No, it isn’t an independent mind, and it’s certainly no impartial judge. All it really does is take the content that’s currently acceptable to its creators and then will synthesize it into responses. And it will lie to you outright, with zero conscience, because it has no conscience at all. It’s a sophisticated machine, a tool, nothing more or less, and it can absolutely be manipulated by the agendas of those behind the scenes who run it.
Like Wikipedia or so-called fact-checkers, at best, AI reflects the current bias or the established narrative. A perfect example of this is the lab leak theory for Covid-19’s origins. Back when some of us were talking about it, we were being “debunked” (some even banned), only for things to reverse later. As of early 2025, the CIA has assessed that a research lab origin is more likely than a natural one. So, to all the “sources please” crowd: beware. There’s no substitute for building your own knowledge base and using your own brain to evaluate things independently of official or established organizations.
AI is probably less reliable than your GPS. Sure, the tool works most of the time, but it’s no replacement for your own eyes or basic navigation skills. “Death by GPS” is a real category for a reason—if the machine were totally accurate, people wouldn’t drive off cliffs or into lakes after following bad directions. We need our own internal map, built on some established waypoints and a landmark or two, rather than just plugging in an address and blindly following the device into the abyss. Above all, we need a strong internal BS detector, we need it because the tool belongs to them—and it does what its creators need it to do. And telling you the unvarnished truth isn’t always the priority.
At its very best, AI will reflect the currently available information and most dominant narrative. Imagine, had the technology been available, asking it about the threat of Covid early on—it very likely would have dismissed outlier concerns as rumors, downplayed the disease in comparison to the seasonal flu, maybe even lectured about racism—while echoing the House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s encouragement, February of 2020, to visit those crowded streets of San Francisco’s Chinatown in total defiance of emerging fears. (A family member ridiculed me for saying Covid would be a big deal at that time—dutifully citing mainstream media sources saying it was less worrisome than the seasonal flu.)
People have also very quickly forgotten how The Lancet published a deeply flawed study in the critical early weeks of the pandemic claiming hydroxychloroquine was extremely dangerous—only to quietly retract it later because the authors couldn’t verify the authenticity of the data. In short, the data was totally unreliable, and was a study based on falsehoods presented as science. If that was the “reliable” information being fed into an AI system back then, what would it have told you the scientific consensus was? It would have parroted the lie, and made it as unreliable as the retracted paper during the most urgent phase of the crisis. AI didn’t exist in its current form at the time, but its behavior would have mirrored exactly what I describe: reflecting the biased mainstream thought rather than truly act as a functioning as an independent thinker.
AI lags behind reality. A semi-independent mind—one relying on their personal intelligence and a grounded model of the world—can oftentimes do better. When I saw the early images coming out of Wuhan and listened to reports from doctors there (some of whom later died or disappeared), I knew this was not just the seasonal flu. It didn’t matter how many three-letter agencies were being quoted by corporate media; I could make my own judgment. I also quickly realized how terribly politicized even a pandemic can become. People didn’t pick sides based on the evidence—instead, they chased (or even invented) evidence to confirm their partisan narratives.
If AI had existed back then, it would have picked a side based on what its owners wanted. Covid is where I really honed my BS detector and learned that both sides lie—not that I was oblivious before, but seeing it play out in real time was very eye-opening. Partisans would flip positions the moment their preferred politicians did. Suddenly, independent voices raising alarms (with Trump leaning that way) became the target, then Democrats outflanked this with total hysteria after their months of denial when it actually mattered. We saw the same flip with Operation Warp Speed: with the left as vaccine skeptics while Trump promoted them, only for the Democrats pushing hard for mandates while Republicans opposed even masks.
How fast a symbol of oppression/security can become a symbol of oppression/security. Questions remain about effectiveness in either context.
Now, identity-obscuring masks are back in style as authoritarian right-wing fashion, as ICE agents terrorize, and insurrections are now cool again for Democrats who dislike immigration laws or the last election results. And AI won’t fix any of this partisanship—especially when people use it without understanding how it works or its severe limitations.
At best, AI is a good supplement or starting point for someone who already knows how to ask the right questions. At worst, it will lie and give you exactly what you want to hear. But one thing is certain: AI is NOT an objective truth-teller. Rely on your own reasoning, your own research, your own past experience, the reliable voices you have vetted on your own or your own BS detector first. The AI machine is no substitute. Yes, independent thinking is tough, in practice, and yet we must be smarter than the tool. Journalism, Wikipedia, or fact-checkers and GPS—all of these things are reliable… until they’re not.
The recent fatal shooting of Alex Jeffrey Pretti, a 37-year-old ICU nurse at the Minneapolis VA hospital, by U.S. Border Patrol agents has left many Americans—including many who identify as conservative—grappling with deep unease. On January 24, 2026, amid escalating protests against Federal immigration enforcement operations in Minneapolis, Pretti was executed while trying to protect a woman from Federal agents who had just knocked her down. Multiple eyewitness videos, verified by major outlets like The New York Times and NBC News, show Pretti holding a phone—not a gun—while attempting to assist a woman who had been shoved to the ground. Federal officials initially claimed self-defense, alleging he approached with a weapon, but sworn witness testimonies and footage contradict this, describing him as non-resistant and focused on helping others.
Pretti was a dedicated healthcare worker who cared for veterans, an avid outdoorsman, and a U.S. citizen with no criminal record beyond minor traffic issues. He had a valid firearms permit, was legally carrying at the time of the confrontation, but evidence indicates no firearm was brandished. His family has condemned the official narrative as “sickening lies,” and protests erupted almost immediately, with Minnesota officials like Gov. Tim Walz calling the incident “sickening” and demanding an end to what they describe as a federal “occupation.” It marks the second fatal shooting of a US citizen by Federal agents in Minneapolis this month, following Renee Good’s death on January 7.
What disturbs me most is the reaction from the MAGA right-wing. Pretti has been quickly labeled as a “Communist” or “domestic terrorist” online, often solely based on his presence at the protests against immigration raids or the unverified social media claims. Yet reliable reports portray him as apolitical in daily life—as kind, service-oriented, and uninterested in partisan drama. His friends and colleagues emphasize his true commitment to saving lives, not disrupting them. Celebrating or dismissing his death, dehumanizing him with labels, because he fits a convenient ideological enemy is profoundly wrong. Rights violations don’t depend on politics. No, due process and presumption of innocence apply to everyone, even (or especially) those we disagree with.
This selective outrage highlights a deeper issue not being addressed: this is political retribution disguised as enforcement. Minnesota has a very small illegal immigrant population compared to other states, around 95,000–130,000 (per recent Pew Research and state analyses), nothing like Texas (2.1 million) or Florida (1.6 million)—red states with far larger numbers. And yet Federal resources, including thousands of ICE, Border Patrol, and DHS agents deployed since late 2025, have disproportionately targeted blue Minnesota with sanctuary-like policies. Freezing billions in Federal funds to the state and overriding local law enforcement appears to be punitive, aimed at breaking political resistance rather than uniform honest immigration control.
This echoes historical patterns of a central power crushing regional autonomy, and most starkly in Joseph Stalin’s use of starvation against Ukraine during the Holodomor of 1932–1933. Stalin had deliberately engineered a man-made famine to suppress Ukrainian nationalism and resistance to Soviet collectivization, killing millions through grain seizures, border blockades, and denial of aid—this framed as necessary for national unity and ideological purity, but was clearly intended to crush a semi-autonomous region’s defiance. Here, the heavy-handed federal deployment in Minnesota—targeting a state resisting central directives—clearly mirrors that authoritarian tactic: punish non-compliance under the guise of security, erode local sovereignty, and break any “resistance” to the regime’s aims.
The US Constitution originally designed states as semi-sovereign entities—much like small nations —with the Federal government focused on their defense and on interstate affairs. Expansions of Federal authority—starting as an unfortunate byproduct of Lincoln’s Civil War centralization of power and those Reconstruction-era impositions, shifted the balance. Today’s actions—militarized deployments without state consent, the killings during protests, and limited (or non-existent) cooperation in investigations—violate the 10th Amendment’s spirit. A Federal judge has already issued a restraining order on DHS crowd-control tactics, and multiple states have since joined legal challenges calling them “militarized and illegal.”
George Orwell diagnosed this in 1984: regimes manufacture perpetual enemies to justify control—using propaganda to invert reality. Fear of “outsiders” or “internal threats” (protesters, or sanctuary cities) is stoked to excuse force, while media—dominated by a few billionaire-aligned outlets—amplifies narratives that dumb down discourse. Some cheer Federal agents after these killings, seeing them as heroes against an illegal “invasion,” yet ignore contradictions like inaction in red states with bigger populations. People who just a couple years ago decried Covid mandates and the slaying of Ashli Babbitt now seem to see FAFO as a moral argument. It’s always the same playbook: dehumanize, divide, and centralize the decision making power.
The above is brazen disinformation with an agency logo. They’re distorting and misleading people.
The right-wing is just as collectivist and dumb as those who they derided as being leftist, Socialist or Communist. They couldn’t articulate a logical consistent argument in defense of their irrational smorgasbord approach to ethics and morality, it is just whatever is expedient in the moment and on the whim of their Big Brother stand in (DJT) as the billionaires technocrats decide how they will manage us unruly human cattle.
Partisans keep flip flopping. The truly principled do not change and stand for “liberty and justice for all” as they pledged.
Orwell didn’t foresee AI and mass surveillance tools like Palantir, but the parallels are eerie. During COVID, many on the right had decried overreach in the name of liberty; now, similar authoritarian capabilities are embraced when aimed at perceived enemies. They fail to see the machine they’re building will also be turned on them. They reveal themselves as tools rather than moral thinkers. This hypocrisy reveals how various systems of control operate identically—whether they’re labeled Socialist, authoritarian, woke or otherwise—they erode rights selectively until they target anyone dissenting.
Pretti’s death isn’t about immigration politics alone; it’s about the erosion of constitutional norms, the weaponization of federal power against states, and the willingness to overlook violations when the victim is painted as “the other.” True conservatism should defend limited government, state sovereignty, and individual rights always—not cheer when Federal agents kill citizens in the street (then clap in celebration) over disputed enforcement actions. If we accept this for “Communists” today, tomorrow it could be anyone labeled an enemy. When a regime is given permission to abuse Nazis then everyone is a Nazi if they stand up to the regime. That’s how this works and smart people aren’t a party to it.
Yes, the agents clapped and said “boo hoo” learning of the ICU nurse’s death. Very similar to the attitude of Jonathan Ross who exclaimed “fucking bitch” after he shot a woman in the face.
We need accountability, especially at the top, in a time when our President’s wealth has doubled as he continues to protect pedophile predator elites, we need to ask why release of the Epstein files is being and unlawfully slow walked. We need to have independent investigations of these killings, transparency on bodycam footage, and an end to punitive Federal overreach. Lives like that of Alex Pretti’s—of ordinary Americans trying to help in chaotic moments imposed by officials who only double down rather than deescalate—deserve better than propaganda-fueled dismissal. We do not want to wait until two becomes two million—we either stand together now against a budding authoritarian regime or we fall separately.
In the annals of history, empires often have become cornered by their ambitions and are forced into desperate acts that hasten their downfall. Imperial Japan in the lead-up to World War II provides a stark example: backed into an economic stranglehold by US oil embargoes, it launched a very daring attack on Pearl Harbor in a bid for survival. And, today, the United States faces a eerily similar predicament—not as the embargoes’ enforcer, but as a nation grappling with big resource dependencies, massive mounting debts, and quickly eroding global influence. This parallel becomes extremely vivid when examining U.S. policies toward Venezuela—where the act of desperate aggression of Imperial Japan echos Trump’s bold moves on Greenland and the kidnapping of Nicolás Maduro. Drawing on historical precedents and the current events, we see superpower teetering on the edge—actions driven more by vulnerability than strength.
To fully understand this analogy, recall the circumstances that propelled Japan toward Pearl Harbor. In the 1930s and early 1940s, Japan’s imperial expansion in Asia relied heavily on imported oil, much of it from the United States. When President Franklin D. Roosevelt imposed an oil embargo in 1941—as a response to Japan’s actions in China and Indochina—this act was a declaration of an economic war. And it also set a countdown timer on Japan’s military machine. Without fuel, their economy and war efforts would grind to a halt and within months. Faced with this dire situation—down seven points with a minute left on the clock, as one might say—Japan opted for a Hail Mary: a surprise attack on the US Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. The hope was to cripple U.S. naval power long enough to negotiate a favorable peace deal and secure resource access. Tactically brilliant, the audacious strike was an amazing success, devastated battleships and caused enormous damage. However, not wanting to risk detection, the Japanese decided against a third wave and left fuel depots and repair facilities ready to use. Crucially, the U.S. aircraft carriers, that would prove decisive in the coming battles, were absent from moorings.
Perfectly planned and executed.
The Japanese leaders underestimated America’s resolve and their unmatched industrial capacity—which soon out-produced and overwhelmed them. What began as a bid for survival ended in their total humiliating defeat.
Fast-forward to the present, and the United States occupies the opposite seat at the table—or rather, a mirrored one. Once the architect of oil embargoes, America now imports much of its oil, and has refineries optimized for heavy crude from sources like Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Venezuela. Our economy ticks like a time bomb, burdened by dependencies on foreign production (notably China for manufacturing) and a military that, while formidable, also shows cracks of vulnerability. Recent simulations highlight this: in combined naval exercises, a relatively cheap ($100 million) diesel air-independent propulsion (AIP) submarine has “sunk” a powerful $6 billion nuclear U.S. Navy aircraft carrier, underscoring how newly arrived asymmetric threats could shatter the illusion of invincibility. This mirrors Japan’s overconfidence in its naval prowess, only to face industrial and logistical realities.
Nowhere is this desperation more apparent than in the US . dealings with Venezuela, a nation long in the shadow of the American empire.
Nobody comes close to the US in military capabilities.
South America’s history is riddled with bullying US interventions prioritizing corporate interests over national sovereignty—from the violence of CIA-orchestrated coups to those direct military incursions—a history that has birthed the term “Banana Republic.” For over a century, as long as resources flowed northward, Washington turned a blind eye to the most brutal regimes and their human rights abuses. The US military has often served solely as an enforcement arm of a handful billionaire oligarchs, who in turn fund politicians in DC in a corrupt cycle of public risk for private gain masquerading as Capitalism.
U.S.-Backed Kidnappings, Assassinations and Coups in Latin America Since 1950
1954 — Guatemala — President Jacobo Árbenz — Overthrown in CIA Operation PBSUCCESS
1960s, 70s, 80s — Cuba — Prime Minister Fidel Castro — The US tried to assassinate him about 634 times and invaded the country during the Bay of Pigs
1961 — Dominican Republic — Rafael Trujillo — US-backed coup and assassination
1964 — Brazil — President João Goulart — US-supported coup
1965 — Dominican Republic — President Juan Bosch — US-supported coup
1970 — Chile — General René Schneider — US-supported kidnapping and assassination
1971 — Bolivia — President Juan José Torres — US-supported coup
1973 — Chile — President Salvador Allende — US-backed coup and “suicide” of Allende
1976 — Argentina — President Isabel Perón — US-backed coup
1976 — Bolivia (in exile in Argentina) — former President Juan José Torres — US-supported assassination
1981 — Panama — General Omar Torrijos — Death in suspicious plane crash with likely US support
1981 — Ecuador — President Jaime Roldós — Death in suspicious plane crash with likely US support
1983 — Grenada — Prime Minister Maurice Bishop — US invasion and removal of Bishop in Operation Urgent Fury
1980s — Nicaragua — Sandinista government — Sustained covert regime-change war
1989 — Panama — Gen. Manuel Noriega — Invasion, kidnapping and transfer to US custody in Operation Just Cause
2002 — Venezuela — President Hugo Chávez — Kidnapped by US-backed military forces for less than 48 hours before being restored to power
2004 — Haiti — President Jean-Bertrand Aristide — Kidnapped and flown to Africa on a US military plane
2009 — Honduras — President Manuel Zelaya — US-backed kidnapping and coup
Venezuela’s “crime” was simple: asserting control over its vast oil reserves. When the government nationalized assets for sake of their people, the U.S. corporations and their political allies responded with their crippling sanctions—akin to thugs blocking shoppers from a well-stocked store. These measures aren’t about justice; they’re punishment for defying the empire. Claims that Venezuela “stole” oil infrastructure built by U.S. firms ignore offers to compensate, which were rebuffed. Why accept a fair payment when gross exploitation of resources is far more profitable? Recent actions under President Trump, including the controversial removal of the Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro to face a US judge, smack of desperation: a bid to seize assets and bolster a faltering balance sheet. It’s framed as liberating a people from Socialism, but the real reason is resource control.
US propaganda blames Venezuelan suffering on internal policies—like universal healthcare—ignoring how our sanctions starve their economy. Socialism is not a problem in Israel—why only here?
Meanwhile, alternative oil sources like Saudi Arabia or Russia remain volatile and keeping access is an increasingly risky proposition.
And, while I firmly believe mutual respect could yield great prosperity for the US and Venezuela—would both allow the migrants fleeing poverty to stay home and secure stable energy for the US without war—that is a peaceful solution that is far less profitable for US-based oil billionaires. Maduro had also taken a strong stance against the killing in Gaza. The country of Venezuela—under Hugo Chávez—banned usery and enforced a regime of conservative morals (US pornography banned and on gay marriage) all of which defies US banking and business interests.
This imperial overreach extends to the broader economic woes in the US, painting a picture of a nation painting itself into a corner. The US national debt, which first hit $1 trillion in 1981, now ballooned to $38 trillion and now they add a nearly trillion dollars every other month in an unsustainable parabolic ascent. The US currency debasement, endless printing of money, punishes global holders, and is fueling the rise of BRICS as the safer alternative to the dollar’s long abused “exorbitant privilege.” Worse, all this government spending, regardless of the party, simply funnels wealth to oligarchs via their political connections—a trickle-down economics by another name. So called “tax cuts for the rich” are derided, and yet inflation achieves this exact same redistribution upward. The weaponization of the dollar, more importantly, erodes faith in its reserve currency status, undermining the very foundations of the post-World War II systems on which US strength rests—like Bretton Woods and the Petrodollar.
Compounding this loss of US reputation is a propaganda machine straight out of George Orwell’s 1984. No, show trials and kangaroo courts aren’t relics of Soviet excess; they’re very much alive in US actions against the figures like Maduro, tried in a rigged system far from impartiality. Maduro’s criticism of Gaza violence preceded his ouster, timed suspiciously after meetings between Trump and Israeli leaders. Media manipulates the narratives—vanishing massive supporting rallies or amplifying astroturf campaigns—much like the staged toppling of Saddam Hussein’s statue in Iraq, later regretted by participants who longed for pre-invasion stability. Skepticism abounds: those who saw through Russian collusion hoaxes or Trump’s prosecutions as lawfare suddenly swallow anti-Venezuela propaganda whole, revealing partisan blindness over principle. Lady Justice’s blindfold is absent at the top, swayed by partisan politics and payments. We endure psyops, cancel culture, thought policing, and memory holes, us screaming “2+2=5” at our cult leaders’ behest.
In historic parallel, the US supported Gaza genocide also evokes a direct comparison to Japan’s Nanjing Massacre, the unverified casualties now dwarfing historical horrors. America’s “Zionist” alignment only isolates us further on a world stage, very similar to Japan’s Axis ties. Trump’s tactical “success” in Venezuela may prove a strategic blunder, like Pearl Harbor: a short-term victory that awakens global resistance. And forcing the Danes to relinquish Greenland only drives a wedge deeper. Other nations witnessing another blatant disrespect of sovereignty—applying US laws extraterritorially, flouting the “rules based order” precedents—will only serve accelerate de-dollarization or even lead to alliances against us.
Stephen Miller: “only power and the willingness to use it matters.”
In conclusion, expansion oriented Zionist America, much like the Soviet Union of old, now perpetrates atrocities and abuses—from the bloodshed in Gaza to the brazen seizure of foreign leaders and threats—that erode our moral foundation and alienate the world. This path of treating partner nations like a pimp does a prostitute—the extracting resources through coercion and sanctions—is unsustainable. There are far better ways to achieve our goals beyond application of brute force—unlike the recent assertion by Zionist Trump adviser Stephen Miller saying “only power and the willingness to use it matters.” Embracing mutual respect, fair negotiations, and genuine diplomacy could foster true alliances, allowing us to secure resources without conflict, and also restore America’s standing. History warns that all empires built on military domination crumble; it’s time to choose a different course before our own Hail Mary seals our fate.
Irregular Ideation 