Month: March 2025

Holocaust Then and Now: From Hidden Gas Chambers To Children Burned Alive

Standard

The other day I saw a Facebook ad for a charity of some kind featuring a boy that was covered head to toe in burns.  His body quivered, his breaths short, labored, and he is clearly in distress. 

Thinking this was just some unfortunate accident being exploited for donations it was too much for me (as a father) to see.  My first thought was who is putting this ad on social media?  I posted a combination of my concern for the child and a question of the appropriateness of putting this video on social media.

But later someone responding to my initial comment told me the where and why—and it changed everything.  This baby was not just a random victim of a kitchen accident in a third world country as I had imagined.  No, this was a deliberate act.  It is part of a terror and revenge campaign being waged using bombs provided by our tax dollars.  It is acceptable collateral damage to those on the side of this state actor—which has kept their perpetual victimhood status due to an event before we were born.

Apparently now they have a blank check to do as they please because of the bad thing that happened to their people approaching a century ago on another continent.  Never again is only about their suffering then, protecting their own, and not a call to oppose all genocides or ethnic cleansing campaigns.  They would tell us that the cruelty against this baby in the social media post, and the tens of thousands like him, is all justified because of an attack over a year ago when nearly 1200 died in the chaos of a border incursion and 251 were taken hostage.

However, in the same way I had absolutely nothing to do with American slavery and have not profited from it, this young child is not responsible for what others have done and no less precious than the red-headed Bidas boys killed in the fog of war and are now used as part of a propaganda campaign to continue the bloodshed.  If your outage is selective and only based on whose child is being maimed or killed, then you lack true Christian compassion.

Are You Better Than Your Ancestors?

You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. Go ahead, then, and complete what your ancestors started! (Matthew 23:29a-32 NIV)

There are thousands—tens of thousands—of memorials to an event we call Holocaust and more continue to be built.  Presumably it is so we remember those who were killed and never repeat this horrendous slaughter ever again.  In the Nazi Germany all people who belonged to various ethnic groups and categories were made collectively guilty of trying to crimes against the German people, forced behind walls of concentration camps and then secretly killed by the regime.

The Nazis, despite all their propaganda and hate, took care to hide the reality they were on an extermination campaign.  From their literature, they were “resettling” the victims and that the “atrocity stories” were nothing but malicious lies.  They tried to keep most Germans in the dark about what was truly taking place.  Had they broadcast their genocide for all to see, a good part of German society would likely not have been okay with it—why else would they have denied?

However, there is a modern parallel where those doing the industrial scale murder are shameless.  They watch and cheer as little children are shredded, limbs torn from their young bodies, shrapnel slicing horrendous gashes through their  faces.  But it is not just that relentless bombing of a people rounded up like cattle—it is the young boys ripped away from their families for minor infractions like throwing stones at occupying soldiers, with no due process, then raped and brutalized in military prisons.  

This has been going on for decades and is openly celebrated by the perpetrators.  The United States government enthusiastically supports an ongoing ethic cleansing twice as brazen as the Holocaust.

The sad part is that many reading this will know exactly what I’m talking about, aren’t able to refute a single claim I’ve made, and will choose denial.  Those terrorists had it coming, they’ll convince themselves, as the next child is blow to bits as illegal settlers watch eagerly from the hills overlooking the carnage.  They literally do boat tours off the coast to pick what part of the annexed land they will take.  This is depravity on a whole different level, yet our propaganda blinded morons will say it is 100% morally justified because “God’s people” or October 7th.

A Century of Aggression, Conflict and Terror

The biggest propaganda lie is to say that a conflict began after the other side hit back or escalated.  The fight between the settlers from Europe and people native to Palestine didn’t start on October 7th.  Quibble over the semantic details, but there were inhabitants on the land pushed off through a campaign of terror and abuse, here’s a brief historical timeline provided by Grok:

1882 – First Aliyah Begins: The First Aliyah marks the start of organized Zionist immigration to Ottoman Palestine, driven by European Jewish nationalists seeking a homeland. About 25,000–35,000 Jews arrive between 1882 and 1903, often buying land from absentee Ottoman landlords. Palestinians, the indigenous Arab population (Muslim, Christian, and Druze), number around 500,000 and live as farmers, urban dwellers, and Bedouins under Ottoman rule. These early settlers, motivated by Theodor Herzl’s Zionist vision (articulated later in 1896), begin displacing Palestinian tenant farmers, though violence remains sporadic at this stage.

November 2, 1917 – Balfour Declaration: The British government issues the Balfour Declaration, promising a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine. This galvanizes Zionist settlement, with immigrants arriving under British protection post-World War I. Palestinians, still a majority (over 90% of the population), oppose this as it threatens their land and self-determination. No major Zionist terror acts occur yet, but tensions rise as settlers establish armed militias like Hashomer to guard settlements, clashing with locals.

April 4–7, 1920 – Nebi Musa Riots: Violence erupts in Jerusalem as Palestinians protest Zionist immigration and British policy. Jewish settlers, supported by early Zionist self-defense groups, clash with Arabs, leaving 9 dead (5 Jews, 4 Arabs) and over 200 injured. This marks an early escalation, though not yet a coordinated Zionist terror campaign. Palestinians are defending their homeland; settlers are a growing minority (around 60,000 by 1920) asserting claims to the land.

May 1–7, 1921 – Jaffa Riots: Anti-Zionist unrest in Jaffa results in 47 Jews and 48 Arabs killed, with hundreds injured. Zionist settlers, now numbering about 85,000, retaliate with armed groups like the Haganah (formed 1920), targeting Palestinian communities. Palestinians, still indigenous and resisting displacement, face increasing settler militancy. These riots signal the start of organized Zionist violence, though not yet classified as terrorism.

August 23–29, 1929 – Palestine Riots: Widespread clashes over Jerusalem’s holy sites kill 133 Jews and 116 Arabs. Zionist settlers, bolstered by Haganah, fight back against Palestinian attacks on Jewish communities. The violence reflects growing settler presence (around 156,000 Jews) and Palestinian fears of losing control. While mutual, this period sees Zionist groups refining their armed capabilities, laying groundwork for later terror tactics.

1935 – Irgun Splits from Haganah: The Irgun, a Revisionist Zionist militia led by Ze’ev Jabotinsky’s ideology (“only Jewish armed force would ensure the Jewish state”), breaks from the more moderate Haganah. Settlers now number over 300,000, aggressively expanding. Palestinians, still a majority (around 850,000), face intensifying land loss. Irgun begins targeting British and Arab civilians, marking the onset of a deliberate Zionist terror campaign.

April 1936–1939 – Arab Revolt: Palestinians launch a revolt against British rule and Zionist immigration, killing around 5,000 Arabs, 400 Jews, and 200 British. Irgun escalates terror, bombing Arab markets (e.g., July 6, 1938, in Haifa, killing 18) and buses (August–September 1937). Settlers, now a militarized minority, aim to secure land; Palestinians fight to preserve their homeland. Atrocities include Irgun’s reprisal killings of civilians.

July 22, 1946 – King David Hotel Bombing: Irgun bombs the British administrative headquarters in Jerusalem, killing 91 (British, Arab, and Jewish). This high-profile attack, led by Menachem Begin, targets Mandate authorities to force withdrawal and enable Zionist statehood. Settlers (around 600,000) are a significant force; Palestinians (over 1.2 million) face displacement as Zionist militias grow bolder.

November 29, 1947 – UN Partition Plan (Resolution 181): The UN votes to partition Palestine into Jewish and Arab states. Zionist settlers (about 630,000) accept it; Palestinians (1.3 million) reject it, fearing loss of 55% of their land despite being 67% of the population. Civil war erupts, with Zionist terror intensifying—Haganah, Irgun, and Lehi launch attacks on Palestinian villages.

December 1947–May 1948 – Pre-Nakba Atrocities: Zionist militias begin ethnic cleansing before Israel’s founding. On December 18, 1947, Irgun bombs Jerusalem’s Damascus Gate, killing 20 Arabs. By April 9, 1948, the Deir Yassin massacre sees Irgun and Lehi kill over 100 Palestinian villagers, including women and children, sparking mass flight. Settlers aim to clear land; Palestinians, indigenous and defenseless, lose over 300,000 people to exile before Arab armies intervene.

May 14, 1948 – Israel Declares Independence (Nakba Begins): Israel is established, and the Nakba (“catastrophe”) sees Zionist forces expel 750,000 Palestinians, destroying 530 villages. Atrocities like the Tantura massacre (May 22–23, 1948, over 200 killed) exemplify the campaign. Settlers become citizens of Israel (population 806,000, 82% Jewish); Palestinians, reduced to 150,000 within Israel, face further displacement as refugees.

July 25, 1947 – Sergeants Affair: Irgun kidnaps and hangs two British sergeants in retaliation for death sentences on its members, booby-trapping their bodies. This terror act pressures Britain to exit. Settlers solidify control; Palestinians suffer escalating violence as Zionist goals near fruition.

June 5–10, 1967 – Six-Day War: Israel launches a preemptive strike on Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, occupying the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem. Settlers expand into these territories (e.g., Kfar Etzion reestablished in 1967); Palestinians (around 1 million in occupied areas) endure military rule and land seizures, with 280,000–360,000 more displaced.

1987–1993 – First Intifada: Palestinians in occupied territories revolt against Israeli rule, met with settler violence and IDF repression (160 Israelis, 2,162 Palestinians killed). Settlers, now numbering over 100,000 in the West Bank, attack Palestinian communities, often with impunity. This period highlights ongoing settler-Palestinian conflict.

September 28, 2000–2005 – Second Intifada: A more violent uprising sees 1,000 Israelis and 4,000 Palestinians killed. Settler extremists and IDF target Palestinian civilians; settlers (over 200,000 in West Bank) expand outposts, intensifying land theft. Palestinians resist occupation, facing collective punishment.

The Zionists did not hide their Holocaust and they never abandoned their national roots in terror either.  The Irgun and other settler militias (terrorist organizations) were integrated into the new Israeli government and never held accountable.  Anywhere else in the world Americans would be funding the “freedom fighters” trying to fight off the invasion and later the yoke of occupation and oppression—but, in this case, AIPAC spends millions upon millions every year to buy the support (or just the silence) of US politicians.

The American public is propagandized and Evangelicals shoveled under a pile of what amounts to theological manure to remain blinded to one side of the atrocities being committed.  If your answer to any question of what the IDF does to Palestinians is “but Hamas” then you are anti-Christ.  Jesus did not teach an eye for an eye, certainly not ten of their eyes plus the lives of their children, and instead taught to turn the other cheek and love our enemies.  If you condone (let alone celebrate) the calculated murder of children then you have entirely destroyed your own Christian witness.

There is no morality when morality changes depending on who is doing it.  If it is wrong for Hamas fighters to escape their open air prison (equivalent to concentration camps or Warsaw ghetto) to take Israeli hostages to barter for the return of their own, then it is most certainly wrong for the IDF to bomb knowing they will likely kill up to 15 civilians for one Hamas fighter.  And do not feed me this “they hide behind women and children” bullshit excuse.  Zionism hides behind the Holocaust rather than own up to the long list of atrocities committed in the name of a Jewish homeland.

The first Holocaust doesn’t justify the ethnic cleansing of Gaza or current massacre with spectators.  The IDF is not at war, in war you don’t have boat tours or field trips to watch—they are bombing fish in a barrel and then playing victim.  

This clever framing of perpetual victimhood, even while they are doing worse than those they call terrorists, may work for those who are indoctrinated into Zionism or ignorant—buy it does not work for a consistent moral standard.  

It is a “rules for thee, not for me” scenario where anything Israel does is blessed and anything the Palestinians do is a terrible act of terrorism.  Zionists can steal land, kill or rape the rightful owners, but then be upset when the Palestinians finally caught on and started copying their terrorism.  I mean, if it worked for Irgun—why not Hamas?

No More Holocaust In OUR Name!

A favorite tactic of apologists for Zionism is to deflect from current IDF atrocities to ask why equal time isn’t spent condemning the other side.  But we are not funding Hamas, we are not providing them with military aid, and I am not making a mockery of my faith by claiming that God gives those who deny his son special exemption to kill for land.  If God is on their side then they don’t my tax dollars to fight their fight.  America-first only works when you end foreign entanglements and make no exceptions.  We don’t need to invade Israel to stop them, we simply need to stop feeding their war machine.  I’m not responsible for Hamas—but my money is going to continue a genocide and therefore I will make my stance clear: No more baby murder in my name!

When Aaron Bushnell stood before the Israeli Embassy on February 25, 2024, and set himself ablaze, he didn’t just die—he screamed a truth too many ignore: “I will no longer be complicit in genocide.” His final words echo the resignations of principled State Department officials like Josh Paul, who quit back in October 2023, declaring, “I cannot work in support of a set of major policy decisions… that I believe to be shortsighted, destructive, unjust.” Or Annelle Sheline, who left in March 2024, unable to serve under the Biden administration “that enables the atrocities in Gaza.” These true Americans—soldiers, diplomats—saw the blood on our hands and courageously they chose conscience over career.   

They saw what American Zionists choose to ignore.  The footage emerged of a 10-year-old, Ahmed, burned alive in December 2024 when an IDF airstrike hit a tent camp in Deir al-Balah. His screams, captured on a bystander’s phone, cut through the lies and propaganda: a boy, not a fighter, reduced to ash as the settlers watched from the gallery eager to personally gain from the slaughter of babies.  You can’t be pro-life and be okay with this.  You can’t represent Christ while being an apologist for murder.

We’re not funding Hamas. We’re bankrolling a machine that burns children alive, rapes boys (old as my son) in detention, and calls this defense. 

Bushnell saw it. 

Paul saw it. 

Sheline saw it. 

They acted. 

Will we? 

Or will we keep decorating the graves of the righteous, and pretend that our silence isn’t complicity? 

I posted pictures because we must stop this—in the name of Jesus it must stop!

Facing the Truth

Standard

I decided to take on one of the lies being spread on social media today and found myself bumping up against the Facebook censorship regime once again.  And what they allow or disallow is purely about the partisan narrative they’re pushing.  Leftists can post memes all day long showing Elon Musk with his hand raised, claiming that he is a Nazi, but you can’t even post a plain old picture of Democrats with their hands in an apparent salute without that “misleading” blackout being slapped on it.

InDePeNdEnT fAcT-cHeCkInG

This is the kind of protection those left of center can expect.  They’re never held to the same standard as those on the right.  If you are conservative any soundbite can ripped out of context and disseminated without a fact-check.  Republicans are guilty until they prove themselves innocent.  By contrast, the corporate media mouthpieces do not confront the left for their hypocrisy and require Democrats to denounce the left-wing violence.   And Billionaire’s like Mark Zuckerberg play interference for them by not even letting us make a comparison to show how ridiculous their claims are.

This is what I posted on Facebook with the image above:

What happens when you put a conservative guy with Asberger’s syndrome in front of an audience of leftists?

Bullying.  

The left is about conformity.  

You march to the beat of their drum or they will ostracize and belittle.  Name-calling is a leftist invention.  They love their categories, white and black, haves versus have nots, and it is always about pigeonholing people into tribal groups and robbing all people of their own unique identities. 

But turning Musk’s awkward movements, as a guy clearly on the Autism spectrum, into a Nazi salute—even the ADL said that’s taking it too far.  Unfortunately this misinterpreting of his hand motion has become that moral justification the far-left wanted to unleash a terror campaign of vandalism and violence—a Krystalnacht redux.  

Why did Nazis hate the Jews?  Well, there was the same envy of wealth and influence then that the left is now directed at public figures like Musk.  To the left a billionaire’s money should belong to them, the ‘fasces’ or their elite managerial class, whereas an American vision is that people should keep their lawfully acquired gains.

Patriotic Americans believe in free markets and rule of law.  In stark contrast, the Antifa left (deceptively named) believe in central control (in their hands) and rule by mob if anyone dares to resist their ‘progressive’ regime.  They are everything un-American bundled into one ugly package, unforgiving, anti-freedom, big government, collectivist (you do what ‘we’ demand or else) and do not believe in civil rights—starting with that of respecting property and persons.

As I travel in Asia there are Swastikas all the place.  If we judged their usage by our own narrow interpretation and understanding we would issue travel warnings to Jews.  But it is not the symbols or gestures that matter—it is the attitudes and actions behind them.  Musk wants taxpayers to keep more of the money they’ve earned.  While the left, along with their Democrat enablers, want to scare you away from choosing the best EV brand there is because they’re control freaks.

The left totally lacks empathy.  Sure, they claim it, like they claim everything else on the planet they didn’t earn with their own work.  It’s all about them, their Narcissistic small-minded worldview, that is why they can only ever project, accuse, self-deceive and destroy the success of others.  They’re an organism that thanklessly destroys their host and condones hate, theft, arson, and murder of anyone who does not lockstep with their cult agenda.

Musk’s “my heart goes out to you” gesture…

The problem isn’t only that the left has a clear double standard, it is that they think they’re the worthy judge when they’re clearly as biased as they come.  A little humility would go a long way for this lot.  At the very least they could let us be free from their grip to spend our own money and live our own lives—but then that would be too democratic for their tastes.

Oxygen Masks and Civilizational Math: Empathy’s Breaking Point

Standard

Anyone who has flown commercial knows the safety rundown before take-off.  You’re instructed on where to find lifejackets and how to put on the oxygen masks.  And one thing they emphasize is before taking care of anyone else, including children, they need to secure their own oxygen first.  This does not mean that a passenger shouldn’t care at all about anyone else.  What it means is that caring for ourselves first can make us more able to help others.

I came across a post of Facebook about the vandalism and terror campaign against Elon Musk’s Tesla brand.  In the comments I saw a left-wing activist justifying their violence by using a paraphrase of Musk, “empathy is a weakness.”  So I looked into the claim and found a quote of Musk during a Joe Rogan Experience podcast:

There’s a guy who posts on X who’s great, Gad Saad? … Yeah, he’s awesome, and he talks about, you know, basically suicidal empathy. Like, there’s so much empathy that you actually suicide yourself. So, we’ve got civilizational suicidal empathy going on. And it’s like, I believe in empathy, like, I think you should care about other people, but you need to have empathy for, for civilization as a whole, and not commit to a civilizational suicide. … The fundamental weakness of Western civilization is empathy, the empathy exploit. They’re exploiting a bug in Western civilization, which is the empathy response.

I’m not sure where “empathy is a weakness” can be found there.  What it seems Musk is saying is to keep everything in balance and not go to self-destructive extremes.  I would call it rational pragmatism rather than use a weird sounding “suicidal empathy” and yet it is a poignant point.  We can understand and share the feelings of others (empathy) while not destroying civilization in the process.  It is sort of how I always listen to my son, but don’t always give him stuff that he wants—because the soda and sweets could lead to tooth decay and diabetes.

This is the Gad Saad quote referenced by Musk in the interview:

Imagine an entire civilization that is taken over by an emotional parasite called suicidal empathy that trumps every other instinct that is within your adaptive repertoire. You are willing to sacrifice everything at the Altar of Suicidal Empathy. Nothing is more important than that.

What he’s taking on is the ideologies that demand we recognize, accept and finance every kind of bizarre behavior.  Money being sent for transgender operas when we have crumbling infrastructure, for example, this is what suicidal empathy looks like.  Or letting a confused men destroy women’s sports—there is an opportunity cost to these special accomodations and, with limited resources, it means many will suffer for the whims of a few demanding empathy in the form of their own exemptions and privileges.

My son may want me to taking him fishing every day.  To him I have limitless time and resources.  He says it would only take me a few minutes to drive him across town to his favorite spot.  But what he doesn’t really get is how doing this is difficult given I can’t just leave baby at home and it also cuts into my time to do the chores he neglects.  To him it seems simple and he reacts with disgust as if he is entitled to transportation and a life of leisure at the expense of everyone else in the house—yet the adults know better.

Performative Empathy vs. True Compassion

Nobody at DOGE is saying we should beat or bully transgender people or forbid people from donating to foreign causes.  What they have advocated is for efficient and effective use of public funds.  Yes, it could be called “tough love” and yet it is really essentially to the thriving—even surviving—of the country that we don’t bleed resources for minimal or no real return.  Government is not a charity, it relies on coercion to attain funds, for that reason it should only be used for things the majority of people support.

Those burning Tesla supercharger stations, smashing out dealership windows, or even attacking vehicles owned by individuals not named Elon may claim to represent the side of empathy, but their’s is only performative empathy and part of their partisan political agenda that is all about maintaining their own power and control over others.  Those same people forcing mandates, in the name of climate change, have now spun a 180 to creating unnecessary pollution.  They never cared about the planet—it is always about their belief they have the right to rule us.

That is what toxic empathy is about.  It is a manipulation game, a virtue signal, and like the jealous boyfriend’s love.  Sure, they say they love, and yet would murder before they would ever let their significant other go their own way or be apart from them.  This is, of course, symptomatic of leftism.  They want complete control over your life and yet call a billionaire greedy for being allowed to keep the wealth they’ve amassed.  And that’s the real culprit here: Envy.  It’s not that those on the left care so much about people, it is that they are looking for a moral justification for their rage against successful people.

Leftist ’empathy’ strikes again.

Elon Musk is many things.  He’s extremely motivated.  A problem solver.  A billionaire.  A bit of an online troll.  A father of fourteen children.  Efficiency expert.  And also has Asberger’s syndrome.  It is that last item on the list that puts him at odds with normies who prefer lawyerspeak to bluntness.  Musk doesn’t coat anything in syrup, he analyzes, identifies the problem, and states it plainly rather than beat around the bush.  Contrast to the left, he puts logic and reasoning first—feelings second.

As an aside, CEOs and political leaders have a higher likelihood of being psychopaths.  It is what makes them good at their jobs.  You can’t make good decisions for a corporation or a country when you’re too zeroed in and obsessing over impacts to individuals.  That is going to lead to analysis paralysis and no necessary corrections being made.  Instead they think on the macro scale.  This is not to say they don’t care about the parts, but the good of the whole is what matters to them and they distribute concern according to the overall picture.  Sure it may seem cold and calculated—but serves the common good much better than empathy run amok.

As much as those on the left like to crow—as if their great empathy stretches across the globe—the reality is their typically very focused on their own feelings.

Their ’empathy’ is unsustainable.

Myopic.

Blind.

Christian compassion, in contrast, balances judgment and mercy. You do unto others as you want them to do to you, but also speak the truth in love—even when it gets you killed by an angry mob that doesn’t want to hear it. The tension or fusion of love and accountability keeps it grounded; it’s not a free-for-all where every whim gets a blank check. Unlike leftist empathy, which often bends toward appeasement or control, Christian compassion holds a line—help the widow and orphan, yes, but don’t burn down the house to warm them. It’s personal, not performative, and it doesn’t bankrupt the future for the sake of today’s applause.

Breathing Room for Civilization

In the end, the clash isn’t about empathy versus apathy—it’s about who gets to breathe first when the masks drop. Musk and Saad aren’t wrong to call out the self-inflicted wounds of suicidal empathy; they’re just pointing to the scoreboard: civilizations that forget their own oxygen don’t survive to help anyone. Leftist empathy, with its envy-fueled ‘virtue’ and reckless spending, dresses up as love but flirts with collapse—torching Teslas while preaching care, funding operas while bridges crumble. Christian compassion, for all its flaws, at least remembers the whole plane matters, not just the loudest sob story. We don’t need more performative tears or smashed windows—we need a hard reset on what keeps us aloft. Secure your mask, folks; the turbulence is just beginning.

Vaccine Safety and Skepticism: A Father’s Perspective

Standard

Up until a few years ago, I basically trusted the medical establishment. Sure, even then I would question—like I do with everything else—and then make my own analysis the risks, costs and benefits. My mom’s rule of thumb “everything in moderation” seems to be reasonable in most circumstances. But I’ve grown more skeptical and not because I believe there is a conspiracy to make us all unhealthy either. I just think hubris can be blinding and institutions compromised.

So when it came time to decide whether or not to vaccinate my newborn daughter, my feelings were mixed. She is too precious to gamble. It is my job to protect her. And for that reason I needed to take another look at the question of childhood vaccines. This is my analysis as someone who is not trained in biology, I’m not a medical professional or an expert in any way, shape or form. This is merely the thought process of a concerned father wanting to do what is right and didn’t like the answers he was getting from those ‘credible’ sources.

So join me in a critical look at the topic of childhood vaccines and some things that raised my eyebrows as far as the science, some ethical questions raised recently and the online testimonials versus professional advice. It would take a book to properly cover a topic of this magnitude, but this is an overview and give some reasons for the decision I’ve made. This is a reach into the barrel to examine a few apples and get a little better picture of what else we may find upon further review.

Science: Ingestion… Injection… What Difference Does It Make?

One of my “does their own research” friends reposted a chart posted by Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC) showing the safe amounts of aluminum versus the amount injected with the hepB vaccine—according to their post, 250mcg is an amount 75x more than what is considered safe to be in the bloodstream of a 7.3lb infant. That sounds bad. But this information does beg a few questions.

First, why is aluminum toxic over a certain amount?

Second, does an injection go into the bloodstream?

And, third, why is this in the shot?

What was disconcerting is when I went CDC and WebMD sites and found that they were making an inaccurate comparison. In their defense of aluminum in vaccines they made a case based on the safe amounts to ingest and yet vaccines are injected. This is that kind of presentation that would leads fact-checkers to declare it misleading if it was in a Trump speech. Maybe my neighbor with the “believe science” placard in their yard isn’t going to notice this sleight of hand, but I certainly did. It certainly didn’t assure me much about their actual authority when they tried to pass to different means of entering the body as one and the same.

Oh, but it does…

However, the PIC information is equally as misleading. And they know it. The post is talking about safe amounts of aluminum in the bloodstream. And yet vaccines are not injected directly into blood vessels. No, the shot goes into soft tissue and the aluminum is slowly dissolved from there. So clearly it is not aiding a mission of informed consent anymore than the drug company sponsored content. It’s just propaganda. It is put out to feed the confirmation bias of anti-vaxxers and muddies the waters. The freaked out #protectyourkids mothers are not going to ask further questions.

The bigger question is what aluminum does in large amounts. Words like “toxic” can be tossed around in the same manner of Nazi or racist. But slapping a label of something does not make it accurate description nor is it equal to comprehension of the topic. The same authority establishing a “safe” versus “unsafe” levels of aluminum also tells us to get vaccinated. The whole point of adding aluminum is as an adjuvant, it is supposed to provoke an immune response and only is bad when it begins to build up—typically it is just expelled from the body without doing any damage.

Practically speaking one would need to be an expert on toxicology to truly know what ‘the science’ is and give informed consent, the rest of us are merely picking which side we want to trust. For me, I lean towards the consensus over the outliers, what it means is generally not ranking a relatively group—like PIC—over the larger group of physicians (who have children themselves) and believe that the benefits of vaccines outweigh the risks. Yes, professionals have blindspots, they are more married to the system too as bigger beneficiaries, but they’re also smart people trying to help and heal.

Ethics: Myth of the Abstaining Amish and Abortion Cells

One of those claims that come up over and over again online is that Amish are healthier because they don’t get the vaccines. Given what I know, working with Amish, I’ll put this somewhere between “96% of statistics are made up on the spot” and “Amish don’t pay taxes,” because it is just plain untrue. Back in 2011 my sister, a medical doctor, worked on a survey of 1000 Amish people and their attitudes towards vaccines. 85% of those surveyed had vaccinated at least some of their children. Sure, Amish lag behind the general population, and uptake varies as they’re not a monolith, and attitudes have likely shifted in the post-Covid era, but they aren’t totally abstinent—just hesitant.

To get into the complexity of the picture, in my brief survey of my office co-workers (I work for an Amish-owned company) there was an interesting anecdote. Apparently, his mother contracted measles while she was carrying one of his older sisters. The result were complications and his sister’s lifelong health issues. Needless to say, his mom became more in favor of vaccines after this and that has been the story for some time. The discomfort of subjecting our children to shots looms larger until we get a first-hand experience with the actual disease. A day or two of soreness and high temperatures is better than measles, polio, or other preventable diseases. The ethics shift towards the risk of intervention.

Speaking of ethics, another coworker—not Amish—piped up about how vaccines use aborted fetuses. This is technically true in the case of some vaccines, I’ll let Grok give a brief explanation:

Certain vaccines—like those for rubella, chickenpox, and some hepatitis strains—rely on cell lines originally derived from fetal tissue decades ago. These aren’t “aborted embryos” in the sense of fresh tissue being scooped up and tossed into a vat. Instead, we’re talking about two specific cell lines: WI-38 and MRC-5. WI-38 came from a fetus aborted in the 1960s in Sweden (elective, legal termination), and MRC-5 from a similar case in the UK. Scientists took lung cells from those fetuses, grew them in labs, and kept them replicating ever since. These cell lines are immortalized—meaning they’ve been dividing for generations, far removed from the original source.

Why use them? Viruses for vaccines (like rubella or varicella) often need human cells to grow, and these lines are stable, well-studied, and safe for producing big batches. The cells aren’t in the vaccine itself—they’re like a factory. The virus is grown in them, then harvested, purified, and processed so the final shot has no fetal cells, just the viral bits needed to trigger immunity. Think of it like using yeast to make beer—the yeast doesn’t end up in your bottle.

This longer explanation does not have the same punch as “they use aborted fetuses to make vaccines.” But, for me, it answers the ethical question. This use of these two cell lines to save lives is basically equivalent to planting of a flower garden over the grave of a murder victim. I’m no more guilty of that than I am for the land under my feet being soaked in the blood of conquered people. It is just what is. What was done is done and refusing to use vaccines derived from those cell lines is not going to restore the life that was taken. I have more of a problem with the characterization of this being too vague to give proper understanding.

The soil under our feet is soaked in blood, but not an ethical dilemma to put to good use.

In the end, both sides of this debate peddle their myths, misinformation and deception, calling those mRNA Covid jabs “safe and effective” one of those establishment lines that fell flat in the test of time. But, for me the ethics of putting my children at risk of preventable disease outweighs misgivings about something done over 50 years ago. We can’t bring back those killed, but we can make their lives worthwhile and honor the legacy they’ve created for us. My opinion would be vastly different if they were still harvesting fetal tissue to grow viruses.

It is more important that we are honest than we win a debate. There’s no excuse for the repeated and easily debunked claims about Amish or aborted cells to be shared. Those in the “do their own research” crowd need to do better. When I see people share videos made by a chiropractor, in a lab coat, going only by doctor, it makes me question their judgement more than anything else. Being an expert in doing bone adjustments is one thing, biology is completely another. People aren’t very good about picking their sources, let alone producing coherent ethics.

Tragedy Testimonials Versus Professional Recommendations

Another thing I’ve come across, on social media, is that case of a child that died very shortly after the vaccine was administered. The grieving parents, one of them a nurse, disagree with the autopsy report, that cited SIDS, and put blame on the shots. First off, the pain of losing a child is beyond anything else I’ve ever experienced (you can read my personal account, “The Day My Little Hope Died“) and always will leave many questions for those left behind. Second, in this case, it may feel better to externalize blame.

I’ll admit, I was a little put off by my medical provider (a Physician’s Assistant) who just brushed off my concerns about too much—too soon. This is my little darling, and it is my job to protect her, so at least entertain my anxieties a little. So that part where of her worry about her son’s sickness prior to getting a dose of vaccines being dismissed does resonate. That doctor should have shown a little more respect for a mother’s intuition and a nurse’s instincts. That said, we’re only getting one side of the story and from the perspective of someone not really in a good state of mind.

Just taking the testimonial at face value—not verifying any of the claims—they give a clue about what really happened with their own choice of words:

Melissa, who worked remotely, heard the baby fussing around 6:15 p.m. Her husband went in to check on him. He readjusted him, and rubbed his back as Fathers do. Baby Sawyer fell back to sleep.

When we were in the hospital for the birth of our daughter, before we took her home, they pounded it into our heads not to put loose items in her crib with her and never to allow her to sleep belly down. This is about SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome) when a perfectly healthy baby is put to bed, often laying on their belly, suffers from positional asphyxia and dies. Infants are completely helpless, they can’t readjust their position if their airway is somehow restricted and they could be gone in a matter of minutes.

So that particular paragraph really jumped out at me. I’m very sensitive to how people structure their thoughts, the phrases, and I have even identified a false accuser once only on the basis of the use of words that were conveyed through another person in a paraphrase. When I saw “as Fathers do” it came off as a slightly defensive posture—most especially next to “rubbed his back” in the context of a sleeping infant. One hand they’re being as honest as they are able to be in the circumstances. On the other hand they’ve just given corroborating evidence for the official autopsy report.

They can be forgiven for their blame game. It is hard enough to lose a child, but totally unthinkable to believe something you did may have contributed. When Sanyiah died I stopped speaking to two of my siblings (not that they noticed as busy as they were) for a year or two. Why? Well, they both were not at the funeral, in my mind they did not care enough about the little people in their lives (that meaning my ex-fiance who had personal ties to them) and were, in a round about way, part of the problem that caused the child’s death.

The real reason my anger was taken out on them, however, was that psychological need we have to find a scapegoat. And Melissa, rather than pile on her husband, which won’t help, has pointed somewhere else instead—which is better than their negative feelings being turned in on the marriage. It is a way of coping with tragedy. As far as testimonials go, three of my cousins had a seizure disorder, one of them died and two of them are severely disabled. After their issues with the first child, they decided not to vaccinate. But this made no difference in the end. The impulse to blame intervention is strong, yet correlation isn’t causation and often the truth is messier than those simple narratives we prefer.

In the case of baby Sawyer, it doesn’t have to be one thing or another. The risk factors for SIDS include both second hand smoke and overheating. It seems quite possible a bunch of vaccines, on top of being already sick, and then possibly being on their belly, all contributed to the end result. Medical professionals face big liabilities if they are at fault. There is a tendency to circle the wagons or become tight lipped rather than speculate when million dollar lawsuits can be the result. So maybe in a perfect world vaccines would be a bigger part of the SIDS discussion?

Still, aluminum in the bloodstream does not cause suffocation and 34 hours later is not description of a biological mechanism that links the injection to the outcome.

A Respectful Conclusion, My Final Risk Analysis…

No parent ever wants to be responsible for the suffering or death of their child. When I see my daughter’s eyes looking up at me it melts my heart. She already has me totally wrapped around her finger and I would not do anything that put her at an unnecessary risk. There is a temptation to take the “If it isn’t broke don’t fix it” approach to vaccines or basically do nothing. At least this way an intervention you signed off on didn’t directly cause the harm. Without the nudge of the doctor’s office I might fall off the schedule they have simply because it feels better.

But the body of evidence points to benefits that outweigh the risks. That is to say there are risks, vaccine injury is real, but there are risks to everything we do or don’t do. Would anyone have stepped on board the Titanic if they knew the icy ordeal that awaited them in the middle of the night? In 2022, motor vehicle accidents took the lives of 42,514 people. And yet we don’t see emotional testimonials online about the “mistake” it was to drive to Kansas or trying to caution us against this dangerous activity. This is because we have normalized the risk and tune it out—that and we think that only the bad drivers die when any of us could.

What could be improved is a little respect all around.

First off, this advice applies to the medical establishment. From Fauci on down there has been this attitude of near contempt for those who question their authority. A prime example is the statement of Dr Fauci when faced with scrutiny:

So it’s easy to criticize, but they’re really criticizing science because I represent science. That’s dangerous. To me, that’s more dangerous than the slings and the arrows that get thrown at me. I’m not going to be around here forever, but science is going to be here forever. And if you damage science, you are doing something very detrimental to society long after I leave. And that’s what I worry about.

Beyond hybris. Beyond martyr complex and a misdiagnosis of the situation. No, Fauci, you cannot say “I am the law” like a rouge police officer. That’s not science, that is just a delusion. Sure, it sucks to be questioned in your own area of expertise. I think this is why some physicians do sometimes gloss over concerns of patients. But this is what damages the credibility of the institutions of science more than anything else. When the top doctor confuses “the science” with his own position he’s dangerous.

Okay, you smug, and dangerous, SOB.

Second, those of us self-educated people, who have not gone through that rigorous process of medical school or taken any kind of advanced biology course should remain humble. No, my lack of proper terminology does not make me an idiot. Nor should a nurse and mother’s concerns about her sick baby getting shots be dismissed. But “did your own research,” while in the lobby of the chiropractor, does not make you an expert or unbiased.

In the end, no parent wants to gamble with their child’s life. Staring into my daughter’s trusting eyes, I feel the weight of that responsibility—and the pull to do nothing, to avoid any chance of harm through action. Yet, after sifting through the science, wrestling with ethical dilemmas, and listening to both heartbreaking stories and professional guidance, I’ve landed on this: the evidence tilts toward vaccines’ benefits outweighing their risks. It’s not a perfect system—vaccine injuries happen, and the medical establishment could stand to listen better—but the data holds up against the diseases they prevent. We all deserve more humility and respect in this conversation, from doctors to doubters like me. For my little girl, I’m choosing the path that keeps her safest, not just from needles, but from what they guard against.

Hit me up in the comments section below with your most powerful arguments for or against childhood vaccines.

Do you vaccinate your children, why or why not?

Never Meet Your Heros

Standard

I have lost all of my heroes. The expression, “Never meet your heroes, because they’re sure to disappoint you,” describes the painful realization that those great people you imagined are not as special as you believed they were.  It could be the letdown a friend had when he heard Matt Walsh speak.  It could be a family that learned their eldest brother was cheating on his wife for many years and was not some image of virtue.  For me it was a process and a very long grinding away of faith in these figures.

I was never one for human idols.  I never put posters of celebrity faces on my bedroom wall and would never be as impressed with figures like Ravi Zacharias as some of my friends.  It wasn’t a religious thing nor something just to be ornery.  I simply didn’t have a feeling of awe about these personalities that were mid.  The people I most admired tended to be local—my blue collar dad, my missionary cousin, or that perfect girl I would marry some day.  But time has removed all from the pedestals.

Those women of my youth would end up as the cheating wife or more interested in status than my sincerity.  My dad no longer looks like that man I remember who could carry me on his shoulders (with me hanging on for death life) up a silo ladder, and that zealousness of the ‘compassionate’ types tends to morph into a noxious ideological alignment that is really anything but they profess.  They say that they want the Kingdom, but have replaced faith in God with fraudulent human institutions.

And I’m not just talking about the apologists for CAM in the wake of the Jeriah Mast and years of coverup aftermath.  “Oh, but this is an organization that does such good!”  What I’m talking about is something fully revealed since the DOGE ax has fallen on USAID.  I grew up believing in the strict separation of church and state—that a colonial expansion of Christianity was tainted and this at completely odds with the teachings of Jesus about His kingdom not being of this world.  

My views have certainly evolved—having left my religious cloister—but I’m still appalled by the thoughtlessness of people who I had once thought were smart and uncompromised.

Banality of Evil: When Ends Justify the Means 

The Anabaptists, after the disaster of Münster, had committed to a quiet life of separation.  It is why those in Old Order groups have refused participation in Social Security and other kinds of government benefits.  Mutual aid should be voluntary and Christian charity is not obtained through coercion.  Sure, the power of the state is alluring, that temptation (driven by our ego) to rule over others because we know what is best or they are undeserving of the resources they have—I have had many of those “if I were king” moments—but there is no stopping point when you fail to resist the siren song.

Left-wing politics always clothe themselves in a kind of compassion.  Surely you will not oppose helping these children, right?  And I am pragmatic to the extent I’m glad starving children are fed by any means.  But opening the Pandora’s box of leftist means is always a slippery-slope to more use of state power and, inevitably, to leftist utopian cost-benefit analysis where everyone who opposes us is a literal Nazi and, therefore, we’re justified to stop them with violence.  When coercion is allowed as a means of obtaining the ends we desire there is no stopping point.

The worst form of evil has good intentions.  It is that of those who imagine themselves as the hero of their own narrative and thus allowed to bend the rules.  This explains the extreme narcissism of Luigi Mangione who saw himself as a worthy judge of a father of two and a husband to a practicing physical therapist.  There was no need for this leftist murderer to look inward, he had completely externalized evil and turned other men into caricature representatives of truly complex multi-faceted problems.  When the ends can justify the means we’ll justify any means.

Pastor Jim Jones preaches his counterfeit Gospel before being abandoned by the US government and having to free his cult from bondage with some poison laced Kool-aid.

Seeing someone I thought was a Christian missionary lament how the United States had “abandoned” them was a reminder of how the great have fallen.  There was not a shred of gratitude expressed towards the American taxpayers who financed them nor acknowledgement of the misappropriation of funds that has wearied voters to foreign aid.  But more stunning to me was unholy alliance between this person of faith and agencies of US imperialism.  Since when has the love of Jesus become an extension of the US regime abroad?  Are they of the kingdom, as they proclaim, or agents of empire?

USAID, despite the name, is certainly not a charitable organization and was formed in 1961, at the height of the Cold War, with an aim of promoting the interests of the US political regime.  That’s fine.  But it has long ago gone off the rails even as far as what it was originally imagined.  The Soviet Union had fallen and the Federal agency created to oppose it morphed from something most would support into a beacon of wokeness—pushing transgenderism and abortion.

Break the Yoke of Fraudulence 

The reason why USAID is being dismantled is because we can’t sort the legitimate from illegitimate function of the agency.  Sure, it may help people in need, but funding it also is enabling of evil and maintained through a system of coercion we call taxes.  Anything good that it did can be done through other means.  This functional fixedness of those who depend of government, especially on the part of those professing Christ, makes me wonder where their faith lies and what their actual mission is.

The merger of a Christian charitable cause with government doesn’t purify government—it taints the witness:

Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?  What harmony is there between Christ and Belial?  Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever?  What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: “I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people.” Therefore, “Come out from them and be separate, says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you.” (2 Corinthians 6:14-17 NIV)

The accusations of “Christian nationalism” against those who want a government that performs basic functions were always just a smear by those in alliance with imperialism and Godless globalism.  While I’m not a fan of God and country, at least the flag waving religious patriot knows there is a difference between their Christian mission and secular state.  The left, by contrast, confuses these categories and would have social program replace true charity and community aid.  In one case you have those who may tend to overreverence nation, but in the other there are those who truly represent empire and yet tell us they their only  citizenship is the kingdom of heaven.

The truth is that the ‘Christian’ left is simply the left merely wearing the words of Christ as a disguise for ideological agenda.  Those decrying the reduction of empire and return to responsible governance never said thank you to those funding their do-gooderism.  It was, for them, all about holding those “chief seats in the synagogue” and their own glory as humanitarians.  They may speak against Trump, but then have never uttered a word against the waste, fraud and abuse that has made these broad sweeping cuts popular with common people.

The true Christian spirit is that of a Federal employee who told me about the enormous amount of inefficiency and waste in his own agency and—while making no profession of faith—supports the effort of DOGE knowing it may impact his employment.  That, to me, is someone who understands self-sacrifial love more than someone feeding the poor on another person’s dime and then going to social media to complain when their funds are cut.  They’re grandstanding.  While my Federal employee friend is a truly humble public servant who is grateful and not biting the hand that feeds him.

None of this to say this “abandoned” former hero of mine is a bad person.  They clearly are using their abilities to help other people in desperate need.  I applaud that.  And yet their public statement betrays.  There is an attitude or spirit there that is different from Christ.  I would much rather they just be a secular humanist—subscribed to partisan leftist politics—and own it.  They should just admit that they’ve abandoned faith in Jesus and are looking for a worldly system.  Judas Iscariot is the patron saint of faithless social justice, guilt trips and envy—when you betray your calling just own it.

Morality as a Fluid Mess: Conditioning, Conflict, and the Mirage of Universality

Standard

We cling to morality like it’s a lighthouse in the fog—steady, universal, guiding us home. But it’s a lie. It’s a battered flag, flapping in whatever wind our tribe’s blowing, stitched from the yarns we’re spun by family, faith, or flag. Raised Mennonite, I drank in peace and love for the outsider as if they were carved in my bones—until I saw they weren’t. Nature doesn’t whisper “thou shalt not kill”; it shrugs while we slit throats or swipe bread when the need hits. History’s littered with it: Biblical Israel butchered Canaanites—whole towns, babies dashed on rocks—‘cause God handed them the deed (Deuteronomy 7:1-2), and the faithful sang psalms over the ashes. 

Fast-forward to 2025: Israel pounds Gaza, kids buried in rubble, and the justification’s “security”—Hamas tunnels, rockets, survival. Insiders nod; it’s moral, necessary. Morality’s no fixed star—it’s a mirror, reflecting who we’re with and what we want.Look around today, and it’s the same mess. Russia rolls tanks into Ukraine, March 2025 still grinding on, flattening Mariupol redux—schools, hospitals, grandmas in the crosshairs. Putin’s line: “denazification,” protecting Russian speakers, historical destiny. His people buy it, or enough do—state TV’s been marinating them in it for years. The West screams “war crimes!”—sanctions pile up, Zelensky’s a saint on X—but that’s the outsider’s perch. Kyiv’s got its own blood on the slate: shelling Donbas for a decade, shrugging at Russian-speaking dead. Both sides sanctify their kills; morality bends to the banner. Or take the U.S.: Trump loyalists storm Capitol Hill in ‘21, “stolen election!” on their lips, while Biden’s crew locks ‘em up, crowing “democracy!” Same act—violence for a cause—flips from treason to justice depending on the lens. It’s not universal; it’s us-versus-them, conditioned to the core.

Look around today, and it’s the same mess. Russia rolls tanks into Ukraine, March 2025 still grinding on, flattening Mariupol redux—schools, hospitals, grandmas in the crosshairs. Putin’s line: “denazification,” protecting Russian speakers, historical destiny. His people buy it, or enough do—state TV’s been marinating them in it for years. The West screams “war crimes!”—sanctions pile up, Zelensky’s a saint on X—but that’s the outsider’s perch. Kyiv’s got its own blood on the slate: shelling Donbas for a decade, shrugging at Russian-speaking dead. Both sides sanctify their kills; morality bends to the banner. Or take the U.S.: Trump loyalists storm Capitol Hill in ‘21, “stolen election!” on their lips, while Biden’s crew locks ‘em up, crowing “democracy!” Same act—violence for a cause—flips from treason to justice depending on the lens. It’s not universal; it’s us-versus-them, conditioned to the core.

Objections bubble up like clockwork. The optimists—call ‘em Pinker’s crowd (2011)—say genocide’s revulsion proves we’ve got a moral spine, empathy baked in from caveman days. Hunter-gatherers shared meat, Confucius preached kindness—see, we’re wired for good! But that’s a half-truth, and a flimsy one. Those old tribes cared for their own; strangers got the club. Same with today’s wars: Ukraine’s defenders weep for Bucha’s mass graves but gloss over their own artillery sins. Israel’s critics howl at Gaza’s death toll—over 40,000 by late 2024, per UN counts—yet Hamas rockets barely dent their outrage. Why? Fundamental attribution error: outsiders slap “evil” on the doer—Russia’s a monster, Israel’s a bully—while ignoring the stew they’re boiling in: encirclement fears, decades of tit-for-tat bombs. Insiders don’t see villainy; they see survival, righteousness, their conditioning kicking in. Evolution’s no saint—it’ll cheer cooperation or carnage, whichever keeps the clan breathing.

Objections bubble up like clockwork. The optimists—call ‘em Pinker’s crowd (2011)—say genocide’s revulsion proves we’ve got a moral spine, empathy baked in from caveman days. Hunter-gatherers shared meat, Confucius preached kindness—see, we’re wired for good! But that’s a half-truth, and a flimsy one. Those old tribes cared for their own; strangers got the club. Same with today’s wars: Ukraine’s defenders weep for Bucha’s mass graves but gloss over their own artillery sins. Israel’s critics howl at Gaza’s death toll—over 40,000 by late 2024, per UN counts—yet Hamas rockets barely dent their outrage. Why? Fundamental attribution error: outsiders slap “evil” on the doer—Russia’s a monster, Israel’s a bully—while ignoring the stew they’re boiling in: encirclement fears, decades of tit-for-tat bombs. Insiders don’t see villainy; they see survival, righteousness, their conditioning kicking in. Evolution’s no saint—it’ll cheer cooperation or carnage, whichever keeps the clan breathing.

Zoom out, and the pattern’s stark. Morality’s a tool, not a truth—always has been. Libertarians’ll shoot to guard their patch, Marxists’ll guillotine for the proletariat, U.S. elites’ll drone-strike weddings to keep oil flowing—all cloaked in principle, all serving their pack. Russia’s “special operation” is Ukraine’s genocide; Israel’s “self-defense” is Palestine’s ethnic cleansing. The outsider’s gasp—those viral X posts of Kyiv’s ruins or Rafah’s craters—ain’t proof of a moral bedrock; it’s just a rival script, misreading situation as sin. We’re not debating ethics to polish some eternal gem; we’re wrestling over whose story rules. Take the Houthi strikes in Yemen, 2025 heating up: U.S. bombs “terrorists,” Saudis cheer, while aid workers tally starved kids—same act, split morals. Conditioning calls the shots.

The rebuttal’s got one last kick: if morality’s so fluid, why bother refining it? They say it’s progress, not just haggling—reason taming our beastly side. But that’s wishful polish on a cracked hull. Ukraine’s Zelensky begs for NATO jets, Israel’s Netanyahu quotes scripture for settlers, Trumpers and progressives sling “fascist” like mud—reason’s just a megaphone for the tribe. Authenticity’s the only anchor: own the bias, ditch the sanctimonious dance. Russia’s generals don’t lose sleep over Bucha; Israel’s brass don’t flinch at Gaza’s toll—they’ve got their why, and it’s enough. Outsiders clutch pearls—#WarCrimes trending—because they’re not in the fight. Morality’s a fluid mess, shifting with the players, not a lighthouse. Stop pretending it’s more.

Stepping back from the fray—whether it’s Putin’s moves in Ukraine or Hamas’s salvos from Gaza—offers an authenticity that sidesteps the knee-jerk noise and stares down our own fundamental attribution error. Take Putin: some tag him as a ruthless tyrant, others see a strategist pushing back—NATO’s ring of bases and war games from Poland to the Baltics isn’t exactly a welcome mat, but Russia’s leveling cities isn’t a handshake either. Hamas gets the same split: outsiders call them terrorists, yet in Gaza—two million penned in, scrappy and stubborn—they’re fighting a chokehold, though rockets don’t win halos. My Mennonite roots nudge me to judge NATO’s chest-thumping ‘values’ or Hamas’s bloodshed, but I’ve got my own baggage—my folks kept the world at arm’s length too, just with hymns, not guns. Seeing that, owning how my lens twists the view, points a pragmatic way forward: not crowning heroes or villains, but cutting through the sanctimony—NATO’s not spotless, Gazans aren’t pawns, and I’m no referee, just a guy sorting his own slant in the mess.

The People Want a King, Part II: The Idolatry of the State and the Call to Self-Rule

Standard

A decade ago, in “The People Want a King, Part I,” I wrestled with the ancient cry of Israel—“Give us a king!”—from 1 Samuel 8, seeing in it a mirror to our own craving for centralized power. I cast Trump, then a looming figure on the horizon, as a Saul-like pretender—brash, self-absorbed, a king unfit for the throne. The heart of man, I argued, is frail and fearful, ever eager to trade liberty for the illusion of security. Now, ten years on, we revisit that cry, turning the lens inward and upward: what happens when the king we demand becomes a god we worship? And what might it mean to cast down that idol and govern ourselves under a higher law—one that admits no rival?

Let us begin with a heresy: government is not sacred. It is not a divine institution bestowed from on high, nor are its stewards a priestly caste anointed with heavenly oil. Scripture offers no such mandate. The state is a human construct—a tool, a mechanism, a servant of necessity. It is not the ekklesia, the called-out assembly of God’s people, nor the Kingdom of Heaven breaking through the veil. It is, at its core, a business: a transactional entity exchanging services for tribute. When it ceases to serve—when it grows fat and lazy, a Blockbuster Video in a Netflix world—it deserves no reverence, only replacement. To treat it otherwise is to fashion a golden calf from the scraps of bureaucracy.

Yet the cry persists: “The nation is too complex for such simplicity!” I encountered this objection recently, a rebuttal to my call for radical restructuring. The argument, draped in the garb of sophistication, insists that governance transcends mere commerce—that its intricacies demand a permanence beyond critique. This is a shade thrown at those, like the DOGE reformers, who dare to wield the axe of efficiency against the overgrowth of empire. It is a plea for the status quo, cloaked as concern for “public trust.” But trust in whom? The regime that has ruled longer than memory, entwined with corporate titans and special interests, bleeding the commons dry? The trust was shattered long before any billionaire CEO took the helm; it crumbled under tax rates that plunder and wars that pulverize the defiant.

Here lies the theological crux: complexity is not a virtue—it is a veil. In 1 Samuel 8, Samuel warned Israel that their king would take and take—sons, daughters, fields, flocks—until they were slaves in all but name. The modern state has fulfilled this prophecy with chilling fidelity, its mission creep a slow idolatry. What begins as a servant becomes a lord; what promises order delivers oppression. The labyrinthine bills, the thousand-page tomes of legislation—these are not signs of wisdom but of deceit, a Sanhedrin of scribes hiding corruption behind the law’s letter. To call this sacred is to confuse the Temple with the moneychangers’ tables.

Government as business is no mere metaphor—it is a functional truth. It trades protection and infrastructure for our coin and consent, a covenant not unlike the marketplace. Yet unlike the agora, where competition hones the blade of excellence, the state resists renewal. Private enterprise, for all its flaws, bends to the will of the consumer: Sears falls, Amazon rises. Governance, enthroned as monopoly, calcifies. Its priests—elected or appointed—crown themselves with divine right, decrying reform as sacrilege, a “threat to democracy.” But democracy is not their god; power is. And power, unchecked, builds altars to itself.

This is the sin of the political establishment: they have conflated the nation with their institution, the people with their rule. The nation is not the state, nor the state the nation—just as Israel was not its kings, nor its kings Israel. Government should reflect the imago Dei in its people, a stewardship of justice and flourishing. Instead, it mirrors Baal, demanding sacrifice from the many for the feast of the few. How is this sustained? Through a catechism of control—children reciting pledges, citizens taught to venerate the machine as eternal. To question it is to court excommunication.

Yet Scripture beckons us elsewhere. The restoration of governance requires a return to first principles: simplicity as clarity, transparency as righteousness, accessibility as the leveling of pride. The state’s convolution is no accident—it is a shroud for sin, a “you wouldn’t understand” that echoes the serpent’s whisper. To dismantle it is not anarchy but exorcism, a stripping back to the studs to expose what festers. The old guard, like Saul clinging to his throne, shriek at the loss of their sacred monopoly. But their divinity is a lie, and their temple must fall.

The Stagnation of the External, the Promise of the Internal

Consider the contrast: a business that squanders its capital dies; a government that squanders ours endures. This is the curse of external governance—its inertia defies the natural law of adaptation. Were it subject to the crucible of choice, only the fittest form would stand. Instead, it grows sclerotic, a Leviathan too holy to slay. And the people, seduced by its permanence, make it their idol. They crave a king to think for them, a mediator to absolve their agency. Politicians—prostitutes of the soul—oblige, peddling promises they half-believe, deluded into messiahs of their own making. Zelensky’s advisors call him mad with grandeur; Washington’s geriatrics are no different, mistaking their tenure for providence.

This is not governance but bondage, a learned helplessness masquerading as piety. The privately employed know their limits—life persists beyond their shift. But the state’s acolytes preach indispensability, as if only they can wield the scepter. Contrast this with self-governance: a people ruled not by fleshly lords but by principle, by the law written on their hearts. Jeremiah 31:33 whispers of such a day; Hebrews 8 seals it in Christ’s blood. At the civic level, this need not mean chaos but discernment—shuffling roles, pruning branches, trusting that micromanagement by fools yields only thorns.

Why, then, the sanctity of the status quo? It is the coward’s theology: easier to bow to mystery than to wrestle truth. As Israel preferred a king to the uncertainty of judges, so we prefer bureaucracy to responsibility. Samuel’s warning rings anew: the king takes, and we cry too late. External governance is not our salvation—it is our stagnation, a false god promising safety while forging fetters.

The Myth and Monuments of the Federal Cult

To cement this idolatry, the Federal government has woven a mythology and erected monuments rivaling the temples of old. Consider the Capitol, that domed sanctum of marble and myth, its steps ascending like an altar to a civic deity. The Lincoln Memorial, a brooding Parthenon, gazes over a reflecting pool as if to baptize the nation in its own reverence. These are not mere buildings—they are shrines, designed to awe, to whisper: “This is eternal, this is beyond you.” Like the ziggurats of Babylon or the temples of Rome, they fuse power with divinity, demanding obeisance from the pilgrim and the peasant alike. The Founding Fathers, recast as demigods, stare down from friezes and statues, their words carved into stone as if they were Moses descending Sinai. Big Brother is not God—yet here he looms, a surveillance state cloaked as savior, its all-seeing eye promising protection while its fist tightens the leash.

This cultic architecture is no accident—it sells the lie that the state is sacrosanct, its form immutable. The pledge of allegiance, recited by schoolchildren, is a liturgy; the flag, a totem; the Constitution, a holy writ too sacred to amend save by the high priests of amendment. Yet this is a sleight of hand. The Constitution, for all its brilliance, is a human document, not a divine oracle—its framers knew it, urging vigilance against its abuse. The Federal cult inverts this, turning a tool into a god, a means into an end. As the temples of Baal housed idols to blind the masses, so these monuments obscure the state’s frailty, its susceptibility to rot.

Enter January 6th, 2021—a day branded as a desecration, a violation of the “sacred ground” of democracy. The narrative drips with priestly indignation: rioters stormed the Capitol, profaned its halls, threatened the holy order. Politicians clutched their vestments, decrying the “insurrection” as an assault on the nation’s soul. But let us parse this claim with a smirk—how many have died at the hands of this government, overseas and at home, in the name of “protecting democracy”? Millions, if you tally the wars and drones, yet the single death of that day gets the sackcloth and ashes. If the Capitol is sacred, what makes it so? Not its service to the people—its corridors have long echoed with the clink of corporate coin and the murmur of self-interest. Not its fidelity to justice—its laws have sanctioned plunder at home and terror abroad, not least against Argentina, whose people still bear the scars of U.S.-backed meddling and economic strangulation. The sanctity, then, is a projection, a mythos guarding the idol. January 6th was chaos, yes—ugly, reckless, and lawless—but to call it a sacrilege assumes the temple was holy to begin with. It wasn’t. It was a house of power, not of God.

The true violation predates that day: the slow consecration of a bureaucracy into a deity, the elevation of marble over morality. Ancient temples hid their emptiness behind splendor; the Federal cult does the same, crying “blasphemy” when the curtain is pulled. January 6th didn’t defile a sacred space—it exposed a hollow one, a monument to a king the people demanded but never needed. And here’s where Argentina’s President Javier Milei enters, grinning like a Cheshire cat as he handed Elon Musk a chainsaw in 2025, etched with “Viva la libertad, carajo” (“Long live liberty, damn it”). Milei, who’s taken his own chainsaw to Argentina’s bloated state, wasn’t just gifting Musk a tool for bureaucracy—he was practically dancing with glee to see Musk turn it on the U.S. regime that’s bullied his nation for decades, from IMF debt traps to covert coups. It’s less a symbol of shared efficiency and more a middle finger to the empire, wrapped in a libertarian bow.

Trump’s Mandate and the Singular King

So where does Donald Trump fit in this unholy pantheon? In Part I, I cast him as a flawed Saul—brash, impulsive, a king more enamored with his own mirror than his people’s good. I stand corrected, or at least refined. Trump is no savior, nor should he be—Christians have but one King, enthroned above all earthly powers (Colossians 1:16-17). Yet he wields a mandate, both legal and theological, to tear down these idols, and therein lies his purpose—not as messiah, but as iconoclast.

Legally, Trump’s authority stems from the Constitution itself—a document that vests executive power in a president elected by the people (Article II, Section 1). His 2024 victory, a roar against the entrenched cult, grants him the democratic right to wield that power against inefficiency and corruption. The Federal government, swollen beyond its constitutional bounds, has no divine charter to resist pruning. The framers envisioned a lean state, not a Leviathan; Trump’s DOGE-inspired axe—however blunt—aligns with that original intent. He can shutter departments, slash budgets, and fire the high priests of waste, all within the law’s letter. The shrieks of “threat to democracy” from the old guard are the death rattles of a dethroned idol, not a defense of principle.

Theologically, his warrant runs deeper. Scripture abhors idolatry—Exodus 20:4-5 commands no graven images, no bowing to crafted gods. The Federal cult, with its temples and myths, is precisely that: a false deity usurping allegiance owed to Christ alone. When Jesus declared, “Render to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s” (Matthew 22:21), He drew a line—Caesar gets coins, not worship. Trump, for all his bombast, serves as a wrecking ball to this blasphemy. He need not be pious to smash Baal’s altars; Gideon was a coward before he toppled the poles (Judges 6:27). If Trump’s tenure exposes the state’s hollow sanctimony—January 6th as symptom, not sin—then he fulfills a divine irony: a flawed vessel breaking a greater folly.

Yet here’s the correction to my 2015 take: Trump is not the point. I overstated his flaws as disqualifying, missing the forest for the trees. He’s no king to crown—Christians must reject all earthly thrones save one. “My kingdom is not of this world,” Christ said (John 18:36), and Paul echoed, “Our citizenship is in heaven” (Philippians 3:20). Trump’s role is transient—permitted, not ordained—to dismantle a false god, not to replace it. The Christian’s allegiance lies with the King of Kings, whose rule brooks no rival, be it Trump, Biden, or the marble gods of DC. Self-governance, then, is not just civic—it’s spiritual, a refusal to outsource our souls to any throne but His.

The Eschatological Hope

The people want a king, but the King we need refuses a throne of stone. To cling to the state as sacred is to repeat Israel’s folly, to trade the Spirit’s freedom for Saul’s spear. Self-governance is not utopia—it is obedience to a higher call, a shedding of idols for the stewardship God demands. Complexity is a liar’s refuge; trust is a martyr of our making. Let Trump tear down the temples—legally, he can; theologically, he should—but let us not crown him in their place. Overturn the tables, tear the veil, and build anew—not a kingdom of men, but a commonwealth of the free, under no crown but His.