Watching my son’s football game, it felt as if there was an inflection point. The game got off to a rocky start—their offense stumbled on the first drive, the defense gave up a score, and that was the story of the first half. But in the second half, the game’s momentum changed—the defense sparked a three-and-out, their offense finally got on the board, and it was a whole new game. Even luck tilted in their favor, unlike the first half.
So what happened?
How does a team that gave up eight points rally to score fourteen in a comeback?
An inflection point is a change where it feels as if a giant pendulum has swung, reached a peak in one direction, and shifted to a new or opposite course. The momentum shift may become clear only afterward, but often it’s something detectable in the air—an event or palpable shift in attitude that changes the entire complexion. In the game, it could’ve been a small adjustment by the coaches or simply an opportunity to reflect on mistakes and correct them. It could be that the ball broke in the right direction, a matter of probabilities, with the change mostly an illusion. But football is an emotional sport, and even dumb luck can inspire better play from everyone.
We also witnessed a similar shift during the presidential election. Biden was apparently leading in the polls (if such things are to be believed), and then Butler happened. The event came after the disastrous first presidential debate, where Biden clearly was not as advertised, yet it was the image of defiance—“fight, fight, fight”—that sealed the deal. Elon Musk saw this as reason to put his full weight behind Trump, and with a few McDonald’s drive-through moments and photo ops with garbage trucks, the greatest upset win since 2016 was complete.
Love him or loath him, Butler should have been a warning shot for the left—trying to kill your political opposition only makes them stronger and Trump won with a younger browner vote.
The paragraphs above were written before the murder of Charlie Kirk. Over the past few days, he went from the “prove me wrong” guy debating college kids to the center of a national debate. Since his death, there has been a groundswell of support. As those on the left reveal themselves through celebrations of his death and mockery, Kirk’s Turning Point organization has been flooded with 54,000 requests for new chapters at high schools and colleges. His death is a catalyst, much like the two assassination attempts against Trump, and a potential inflection point in the national conversation.
Before the U.S. Civil War officially began, there was an early attempt to free the slaves. John Brown, an evangelical Christian, believed he was on a mission from God to end slavery in the U.S. and led an insurrection that ended with a raid on a federal armory at Harpers Ferry in October 1859. Even before this, the issue of legal slavery had resulted in violent confrontations. In 1837, the abolitionist Elijah Parish Lovejoy was shot while facing down a mob of pro-slavery vandals who were attempting to destroy his printing press. This event sent shockwaves through the U.S. and galvanized John Brown to publicly declare:
“Here, before God, in the presence of these witnesses, from this time, I consecrate my life to the destruction of slavery.”
John Brown fired the opening shots of civil war, his fierce opposition to slavery inspired by the murder of abolitionist Elijah Parish Lovejoy.
As a writer, I do not create the sentiment of my audience. I merely put into words what other people are thinking or help them organize their thoughts. In other words, if it resonates, it is only because I’ve stated something they’ve already noticed. It also emboldens—when people realize they are not alone in what they see—which is how regimes fall. When people know that others share their understanding and are given a means to articulate it, all it takes is a little push to turn popular sentiment into decisive action.
Synchronicity is one way to describe this. I have often observed many of my friends—likely tuned into similar sources and sharing the same basic assumptions—simultaneously reach an identical conclusion in response to events.
The assassination of Kirk is a moment that galvanizes. It has starkly illustrated how far apart the two partisan sides have become. Some celebrate the murder, spewing vile hatred for a man who was truly a moderate with views similar to those of many Americans. Others are rightly appalled, realizing there is no reasoning or unity with those who believe disagreement deserves a death sentence—that Kirk deserved the bullet.
In a civil society, matters can be debated. If a person says things we don’t like, we still honor their human rights and show respect despite disagreement. But to those on the far left, a statement of fact or an opinion they hate is declared “hate speech,” and saying it out loud constitutes a crime of “spreading hate” that deserves death. This is not an embellishment—a direct quote: “Let this be a lesson to all those conservative freaks, all those weirdos… you’re next in line.” This is a threat we must take seriously when the other side laughs and mocks Kirk’s death—they are not like us.
This is an inflection point, one of those culminating moments where conservatives are independently reaching the same conclusion, and a movement can become galvanized. It will arm Trump to crack down on Antifa and the left-wing in ways he could not have before, with the critical mass of public support he needs.
Freedom of speech doesn’t mean people must associate with you. I’ve never seen the ‘right’ react with such energy before.
In reality, Charlie Kirk wasn’t an extremist leading anything; he represented the quiet majority who are still able to appreciate the difference between men and women and who want laws applied equally for the protection of all Americans—not favoritism or special preferences for some based on identity or political ideology. They are Charlie. He did not radicalize anyone. All he did was try to explain his perspective and articulate what many believe. But he will now be a rallying cry—like the death of Lovejoy that led to John Brown’s vow—that point in a conflict where the tolerance has been exhausted and it is necessary for the sane to make a stand.
Even for me, as someone who attempts to stake out a position independent of both popular sides, I must go with the side least likely to kill me as a default. There’s nothing I share in common with those who are gleeful and cracking jokes about a man deliberately killed in front of his fans, wife, and young daughters. Cheering for domestic terrorism cannot be tolerated. The backlash against those who couldn’t show civility even after a man’s murder will be a turning point, like the momentum shift in a football game—the people are done playing nice with these monsters.
What I mean by that is that I don’t see everything as orchestrated or part of a secret global plot. I believe accidents can happen and that people can do terrible things unaided or completely of their own volition. But, all that said, I also believe that the rule “never let a crisis go to waste” is not an invention of Rahm Emanuel.
Political opportunism is rampant on all sides. And then there’s the just plain letting something bad happen to use for advancing agenda.
What I’m about to detail is all verifiable facts and not conjecture. I’m just going to lay it out then let you reach your own reasonable conclusions. I’ll also prime this topic with a response to 9/11 that has made less sense in retrospect and that is the invasion of Iraq that followed. Saddam Hussain was not at all involved in the attacks. The war cost the US trillions of dollars, 4,419 Americans lost their lives, 31,993 wounded, and that is not to mention the Iraqi losses. We traded that much blood and treasure for claims of there being WMDs—which our government knew were mostly or completely destroyed.
So what was the actual reason for regime change in Iraq?
But, before we answer, let’s get to some of the facts on 9/11. And, again, I’ll stick only to what is verified and not speculate beyond what is very easily corroborated with videos and news articles from the time. This is all things known according to official records, eyewitness accounts, and confessions on foreign television.
While the rest of the country watched 9/11 unfold in horror, five men were seen filming the burning World Trade Center towers from a white van, they were seen high-fiving, and appearing jovially celebratory from the New Jersey side. Their behavior was so totally alarming, and in contrast to what one may expect seeing the US under attack and with people literally being forced to jump to their deaths, that a concerned citizen reported it to authorities.
Trump said Muslims were celebrating in Jersey City. Not true. What he should have said is Mossad.
Later in the day the van was stopped by the police and these five men, Sivan Kurzberg, Paul Kurzberg, Yaron Shmuel, Oded Ellner, and Omer Marmari—dubbed the “Dancing Israelis”—were arrested.
These Israeli men were employed by Urban Moving Systems, a company that was also owned by Israeli national, Dominik Suter, and the men possessed items like $4,700 in cash stuffed in a sock, they carried multiple foreign passports, maps highlighting New York City, and a box cutter like those used in the 9/11 hijackings, further FBI searches of this firm’s Weehawken offices uncovered a fraudulent operation with minimal evidence that it was a legitimate business. Add to it, 16 seized computers, and reports of anti-American sentiment among staff, including boasts about subverting U.S. media. Suter’s abrupt flight to Israel just before a second FBI interview, abandoning the premises with client property and phones left behind, only amplified suspicions.
Perhaps most damningly, in a 2001 Israeli TV interview on LaHadashot, one of the five men, Oded Ellner, chillingly stated they were placed in the U.S. specifically “to document the event,” a strange phrasing implying their prior awareness of the impending attacks. Which the FBI could not conclusively prove or disprove despite the months of detention and polygraphs, such led to the speculation—backed by a 2002 Forward report citing U.S. officials—that at least two of the five Israelis were Mossad operatives using the firm as a front. And officially to keep tabs on Arab extremists. I’ll let you judge if that is just a cover story or the truth.
Why we would ever believe him again, after the Iraq WMD lie…
Enter Benjamin Netanyahu. The day after the attacks, he was quoted in the NY Times as saying “it was very good” before he corrected himself and explained what he meant is that it would “generate immediate sympathy” that would benefit Israel. And it was a year to the day after this that he was pitching a war with Iraq to Congress, calling himself an “expert witness” and warning the legislative body of something that sounds so awfully familiar:
“There is no question whatsoever that Saddam is seeking, is working, is advancing towards the development of nuclear weapons—no question whatsoever.”
Netanyahu continued his case:
“If you take out Saddam, Saddam’s regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region.”
There was zero evidence found to support Netanyahu’s dire warnings about WMDs. I will let you decide if regime change in Iraq was an amazing success that has only led to peace and prosperity for the region. But 9/11 was used as an excuse to invade Iraq and Netanyahu was cheering this on—much like the Dancing Israelis. None of this says for certain that Mossad had foreknowledge or withheld vital intelligence so the attacks could continue and draw the US into Israel’s conflicts. But we did spend trillions for a war that did absolutely nothing to advance our national security interests.
Many of these men may do it all over again, but would they if they knew what they were actually fighting for?
And then there’s October 7th. Netanyahu has called this Israel’s 9/11 and maybe this an admission. Recently, before his untimely death, Charlie Kirk made an observation in a discussion with Patrick Bet-David about the incredible security perimeter around Gaza and surveillance, expressing disbelief that it could be breeched and openly pondering if an order given to stand down. This, wasn’t just speculation. Israeli intelligence had the Hamas incursion plan a full year before and didn’t act, according to the New York Times, and on the night of the attacks former IDF guards have said they were told not to do their routine patrols.
So was the terrorist attack on 9/11 allowed to happen to generate sympathy to later be exploited to further Netanyahu’s agenda as far as Iraq? And as an order given to stand down on October 7th, likewise, benefits the ultimate aim of Likud which is written in the original 1977 party platform, “between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.” Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, the first Israeli Prime Minister born in what had been called Mandatory Palestine, was assassinated by a radical Zionist settler for seeking a peaceful resolution.
Maybe some see terrorists. I see a mother and a child, their lives as important as any other.
The recurring exploitation of crises like 9/11 and October 7th, paired with a history of deceptive hasbara, casts doubt on the credibility of official explanations, urging us to further scrutinize the manipulative tactics of those who may prioritize self-serving agendas over truth.
It has been twenty-four years since 9/11. I recall working in town, for a painter, hearing for the first time—and right after seeing the image of smoke pouring from the WTC and the airliner striking the second tower. The tenant of the house where we were working let us watch on his television. This was a moment of great uncertainty about what would happen next. By the end of the day my car battery drained from the radio blaring so I could hear the reports while we worked on the house exterior.
Much has changed since that surreal day in the fall. I went to college, and have worked various jobs—left the Mennonite tradition—got married, became a dad—witnessed the birth of my daughter and many things that twenty something version of me could not have imagined. And while I still drive Ford products and vote for the same party (albeit grudgingly), my worldview and perspective have evolved dramatically since the fateful day in September 2001. Many things I once thought were impossible are now possible and even likely.
I decided to write this reflection partly for anniversary and partly because Facebook has been flooding my feed with pictures of 9/11 and it is weird. It’s as if some bot farm is tasked with putting this in the forefront of our minds and one can only imagine why. It is most likely an attempt to feed availability heuristic, to keep the 9/11 attacks vivid in our minds—and possibly for the coming war with Iran. A propaganda campaign of those who understand that many Americans have blamed all Muslims for what happened on that day. Maybe the powers that be want to squeeze just one more war out of this day America stood still?
Maybe it’s just that I tripped the algorithms by responding to too many of the repeated claims about melted steel?
We live in the post-information age—a time when we may very soon not even be able to believe our own eyes due to advancement in AI technology, where our institutions have failed us and no source can be trusted. The mistrusted is earned. But the feeling can be misdirected and counterproductive. At the very least we should not just believe a claim we have heard because it fits our narrative. We may never know the full truth. However, we can do a better job forming our theories by employing a broader base of scientific understanding or real world experience to calibrate our judgment.
There is no doubt that the 9/11 attack was a conspiracy, we simply disagree on the full scope and nature of it. It was clearly used as an excuse to pass the Patriot Act and to invade Iraq. There’s evidence that Mossad knew in advance with the “dancing Israelis” reports and suspicious shorting of airline stocks before the attacks. However, it is as clear that Osama Bin Laden planned these attacks as a response to US wars and that—from an engineering standpoint—nothing is inexplicable about the events of 9/11 being caused by fuel-laden commercial jets.
The Conspiracy Condensed
Typical 9/11 conspiracies center around a mix of claims about melted steel, witnesses who heard explosions, an insurance policy bought before the events, or asking about how three buildings collapsed despite only two being hit by the 767s. They’ll claim all of the buildings were rigged with thermite and explosives, even that the aircraft were holograms. There is simply no way for me to address all of the theories and claims being made. There are excellent resources that provide detailed analysis and in-depth explanations. This list below is intended to only address a few engineering or physics related claims, not to make a complete and comprehensive response to all questions related to the 9/11 attack.
“Jet fuel can’t melt steel beams”
This meme, used as part of the controlled demolition conspiracy narrative, is the very definition of a strawman argument. Nobody has ever said the buildings fell because the steel beams completely melted. But what can happen is that steel, heated by an intense fire and with heat protection material knocked off, will lose significant tensile strength. Ane a little bit of deflection—especially to a structure that was already severely damaged by an enormous jet hitting it—is all that is needed to explain a cascading failure and collapse.
“Buildings don’t collapse from fire”
This is not only another strawman, but it proves that most people repeating these claims don’t do any research nor do they think things through. High rise buildings have collapsed without fires, from design flaws or unaccounted for loads, and the list includes the 2012 spontaneous collapse of the Vieira Fazenda office block—which was due to unauthorized renovations that had removed key support columns and failure. Interestingly, two adjacent buildings, hit by debris during the collapse, likewise were reduced to piles of rubble. Then we have Edifício Wilton Paes de Almeida, also in Brazil, that fell from just fire in 2018.
So, yes, buildings can collapse from just fire alone. However, in the case of the WTC, fire alone is not a requirement. Clearly the Twin Towers were struck by commercial airliners prior to the collapse, this doing an immense amount of structural damage, and that the reason why raging fires brought them down in the aftermath. As someone who works in an engineering related field, this is not hard to understand, we deal with sheer loads and also see the results of loads not being fully accounted for. There are no totally indestructible buildings, all are designed for a certain set of requirements and will collapse once the limits are exceeded.
“Empire State Building got hit and didn’t fall”
Next up is the comparisons by those who are clueless about structural engineering and failed physics. Back in 1945 a pilot, who was lost in the fog, slammed a B-25 bomber into New York City’s most iconic skyscraper. It didn’t bring down the tower and this fact is used as proof that the WTC couldn’t fall due to being struck by a much larger faster aircraft.
Different size, speed and building designs more than explain the results.
This, of course, is absurdity akin to saying that since a bicycle can’t go through a brick wall nor can a semi truck. Or that if you can catch a falling baby you should be able to catch a full-grown man.
I’ll let Grok explain:
In 1945, a B-25 Mitchell (35,000 lbs, ~272 mph) struck the Empire State Building with ~86.6 million ft-lbs of kinetic energy, causing localized damage due to its small size and modest speed. The World Trade Center was designed to withstand a Boeing 707-320B (336,000 lbs, 180 mph) impact, delivering ~3.64 billion ft-lbs, assuming a low-speed accidental collision. However, the Boeing 767-200ERs used in the 9/11 attacks (395,000 lbs) hit at 470 mph (Flight 11, ~29.2 billion ft-lbs) and 590 mph (Flight 175, ~46.0 billion ft-lbs), producing exponentially greater energy—approximately 8 and 12.6 times the 707’s, respectively—due to their higher speeds and slightly larger mass, compounded by massive fuel loads that caused devastating fires and structural collapse far beyond the WTC’s design capacity.
Do people really not understand that there’s a difference between the force of a baseball tossed and one thrown at 100 mph? Randy Johnson exploded a bird with a pitch and it wasn’t because the ball was rigged with C-4 or thermite. What is amazing is that these towers withstood the impact and stood for nearly an hour afterwards. Furthermore, a relatively small bomber hitting a completely different kind of structure is absolutely not a valid comparison. The WTC and Empire State Buildings rely on completely different designs—a 1957 Chevrolet and a brand new Toyota Prius are both cars, but do we truly expect them to act exactly the same in an impact?
“So, what about Building 7?”
What about it? The smarty-pants response to the analysis above is to bring up Building 7 which was never hit by an airplane. This is yet another case of half-truth. Sure, there was never a direct hit by a fuel-laden airliner and yet there was an impact of a collapsing tower and a resulting fire. Due to inoperable sprinklers and because available firefighting assets were pinned down elsewhere, there were fires on four different floors that raged out of control for almost seven hours. This, obviously, goes well-beyond any scenario a typical building is designed for. It really isn’t a big surprise that one fire heated structural column would buckle and lead to a chain of nearly simultaneous failures throughout the building. Once one goes the others (having also been weakened by fire) given weight is shifted to them by the failures down the line and as fast as the load is transferred.
Thermite is silent. The conspiracy theories contradict each other. And this is another frequent problem with these theories and points to motivated reasoning rather than honest inquiry or an unbending quest to find truth. So the so-called truthers who claim thermite was used and then cite the sound of explosions as proof are incoherent and unwittingly debunking themselves.
When all else fails just make stuff up, right? And that’s what conspiracy theory truthers do. Nevermind the eyewitness testimony or the actual videos, they’ll just say that those airliners don’t exist and no debris was ever found. That’s just false.
But first an anecdote.
Kee Bird, a B-29 Superfortress, was left in the Artic during the Cold War after making an emergency landing in 1947. Decades later, in the 1990s, a team of enthusiasts decided to dig this intact WW2 relic out of the ice and bring it home. Unfortunately, nearly ready to fly, catastrophe struck their mission, a space heater was tipped over and a fire started in the hull. The aluminum beast melted in half and the recovery effort doomed. It was the first I thought about the fact that such a big heavy thing could just melt away into a puddle.
Kee Bird Saudia Flight 163Fire can rip through and completely destroy an aluminum aircraft.
Airliners are big, but they are also made out of lightweight materials. After velocity took them through those outer steel structure of the impact zones, they were most likely as smashed as a crushed soda can. Much of the structure likely stayed within the burning buildings and was then melted away in the intense heat. But some of the heavier parts did go through, like the landing gear and an engine found scattered below. Commuters saw an airliner flying into the Pentagon and it clipped poles coming in, but of course not much remained recognizable as an airliner after it hit a reinforced concrete wall.
A few large pieces, engine, landing gear and a chunk of the fuselage went all the way through.
“But what about the passport found?”
They say fact is stranger than fiction and a passport of a hijacker being found may fit in that category. This has been used as proof of conspiracy and yet this is the least likely thing someone would come up with fabricating a narrative. Seriously. If they were pulling off a false flag on this scale I am fairly certain they would do better to make the details of their investigation seem plausible. The key is, nobody has ever said this is all that was found and in the violence of the collision it is possible that parts of the aircraft severed off and came through relatively intact. It is similar to straw found stuck in trees after a tornado. Yes, it is counterintuitive, but weird enough that it is unlikely to be part of a cover-up lie meant to convince us of nothing suspicious in the attacks.
“You forgot about the molten metal”
One of the frustrating aspects of rebutting a conspiracy theory is that regardless of how thoroughly one refutes various claims, the conversation will always be circular. This is because the evidence is not actually what matters. With conspiracy theory thinking the theory is what comes first. Evidence is accepted or rejected entirely based on if it fits the overall theory rather than the other way around. And thus when every point is answered there will always be yet another anomaly found. There’s simply no way to answer everything all at once: “A man who is convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.”
One of these small items and yet helpful to demonstrate a point is what appeared to be molten metal that was dripping from one of the towers before it fell. This goes back to the controlled demolition theories involving use of thermite. And just shows how such endless possibilities exist in a scene so big to come up with the unexplained. Looking at the WTC towers from the outside they do not look complicated. And yet, within them were many utility spaces and even electrical transformers to keep things running. There are many possibilities to explain these drips coming out the window that do not require a controlled demolition—perhaps an airliner made out of aluminum that became lodged within the structure?
This stream is assumed to be steel by truthers, but likely from the aluminum of the aircraft—see video link above.
One of the things being claimed by truthers is that aluminum doesn’t glow orange when molten. This is possible to keep their favorite theory alive after someone pointed out the obvious. But, while it is true that aluminum silvers when poured in small amounts or is white at the temperatures where it initially becomes molten due to reflectivity, there is a red glow becomes visible as more heat is applied and it pours red like any other metal when there’s enough heat or volume. So it is misinformation. An inferno from burning office furniture doused with tons of jet fuel will produce more than enough heat to cause an orange glow. So again the theory is based on incomplete knowledge and on pre-drawn conclusions rather than an open inquiry or honest pursuit of the truth.
“Bu-but explosion sounds…”
But eyewitness testimony and description is certainly evidence that can’t be dismissed—so what about the sound of explosions?
First, though, as a child I had witnessed an in-flight breakup of a twin engined airplane and from the ground it was really hard for us to interpret at first what exactly we were seeing above. Initially we heard the sound of what had appeared to be a laboring pair of small aircraft engines. Then, as we had started to observe like inquisitive boys do, what happened next didn’t make a whole lot of sense. The engines wound out and what was one airplane appeared to be two stunt planes doing acrobatics. It wasn’t until we saw papers raining down on the highway as we drove home that we understood the full weight of this horrific circumstance.
All that to explain that it is hard to find the right words for an experience way outside of our ordinary. I mean it’s absolutely nutty to think that a building owner saying “pull it” to the firefighters can mean anything other than an acknowledgement of the risk of this building—with uncontrolled fires raging on four floors for seven hours—may also end up collapsing. No, we’ll just pretend that a co-conspirator would just blurt this out for all to hear it. More likely is the obvious, he was saying to pull out those trying to save the building.
Finally we get to the sounds described as “explosions” in interviews. Going back to confusion about what we saw and heard the Sunday an overloaded airplane came apart over us in the church parking lot—we sometimes just don’t have the most correct or precise technical language. And, while there are theories on aluminum explosion, what is most likely is that people heard the incredible sound of the tons of steel and concrete smashing floor by floor. What is an explosion sound other than a pressure wave—a pressure wave which can easily be caused by the compressed air being forced throughout as the floors collapse one into the next?
All that steel and concrete would make such an incredible sound
The Johnstown flood was said to have had a sound like a “thunderous rumble” as a 40 high wave of water and debris flowed down into the city through a valley where the dam once stood. We wouldn’t assume that they heard literal thunderclaps any more than we would assume thunder is actual claps. The vocabulary for such large and catastrophic events just doesn’t exist. The scale of 9/11 was incredible, a size that was far outside anything else most of experienced, booms, pops or bangs don’t even come close to the noise this would’ve made.
Conclusion: Questioning Wisely in an Age of Doubt
In the shadow of 9/11’s enduring impact, we’re left navigating a world where truth is increasingly elusive, shaped by distrust in institutions and amplified by algorithms that exploit our biases. The “jet fuel can’t melt steel” slogan, while being as catchy as a fire on jet fuel soaked office furniture, oversimplifies complex engineering realities and distracts from more plausible questions about the events—like the foreknowledge suggested by suspicious stock trades or the “dancing Israelis” reports. These deserve scrutiny, but not at the cost of credibility through ungrounded claims of holograms or silent thermite. It’s not that we shouldn’t question the official narrative; we must, but in a way that anchors our skepticism in reason and evidence, not sensationalism.
The real conspiracy may lie not in secretly rigged explosives, but in how 9/11’s trauma has been leveraged to justify policies like the Patriot Act or deadly wars that reshaped the Middle East. By focusing on half-truths, we risk playing into a cover-up that thrives on distraction—and aid our corrupted institutions which very much love to paint reasonable objections together with kooks—we’re also missing the broader, more probable truths hidden in plain sight. Let’s instead honor the pursuit of truth by questioning wisely, and ensuring our doubts don’t undermine the very clarity we seek.
We don’t see things as they are, we see them as we are.
Anaïs Nin
In today’s world, discerning what is real from what is manufactured is a formidable challenge. Suspicion abounds, particularly among the political right, that groups like Patriot Front—openly fascist—are not grassroots movements but rather orchestrated operations, possibly by federal agencies. The MAGA base can’t even spell the word “fascism” let alone embrace it as a guiding philosophy. Yet, this suspicion fuels the leftist “anti-fascism” narrative, which is wielded as a justification for aggressive tactics and bullying.
Fear is a potent tool for control, and political operatives exploit it to manipulate public sentiment. When voter turnout wanes in critical demographics, staged provocations—such as groups wielding tiki torches to “Unite the Right”—can galvanize a larger, more powerful group into action. These events often attract a few genuine extremists, but their true purpose is to provoke a broader reaction.
A pony motor.
This strategy mirrors the “pony motor” in early diesel engines, where a smaller gasoline engine was used to heat and start the larger one. Similarly, false flag operations—whether orchestrated or permitted—serve as catalysts for sweeping agendas, such as justifying military invasions of countries or enacting restrictive laws. While I’m not convinced that 9/11 was a government-orchestrated plot, evidence suggests some knew in advance and that it was exploited to advance a wishlist of wars against unrelated nations and to pass laws that would not have prevented the attack. This reflects the mechanics of how to “manufacture consent” in our modern democracies—where fear is leveraged to unify and control populations.
The creation of a common enemy is a time-tested method for fostering unity. During the Cold War, the specter of communism was used to rally the public. After the Soviet Union’s collapse, Islamic terrorism became the new focal point. The 9/11 attacks, likely executed in part by Osama bin Laden’s organization, were real but were exploited to amplify fear. Domestically, this pattern persists: Democrats emphasize the threat of right-wing extremism, while Republicans fixate on “wokeism” and DEI initiatives. These are deliberate strategies, rallying points designed to consolidate support. Even more effective is provoking hatred from opponents—forcing one’s base to fight for survival and justifying the consolidation of power.
What do you think the point of The Handmaid’s Tale really is?
We Create Our Own Enemies
This dynamic extends beyond politics into cultural and religious identities. Jewish identity, for example, is partly shaped by what’s known as “Masada syndrome,” a collective memory of the Jewish defenders at Masada in Roman Judea (later renamed Syria Palaestina in 135 CE), who chose suicide over captivity. This narrative of the siege mentality is reinforced during the Passover celebration with texts proclaiming to the faithful, “In every generation, they rise up against us to destroy us.” Such beliefs foster an “us against the world” mentality, where hatred is seen as inevitable, reinforcing group cohesion.
Similarly, in the Anabaptist tradition that I grew up in, the reading of Martyrs Mirror cultivates a persecution complex. Likewise, Kanye West’s controversial remark about slavery—“When you hear about slavery for 400 years… that sounds like a choice”—touches on a deeper truth about locus of control. As my mother would say, “You can’t stop a bird from landing on your head, but you can stop it from building a nest.” Paranoia and defensiveness can alienate others or invite their suspicion, while believing you’re inherently excluded can lead to antisocial or even criminal behavior. It’s as if we seek to validate the fears that define our identity.
This pattern is evident in contemporary conflicts. Hamas, for instance, was probably willing to sacrifice innocent lives in Gaza to highlight the Palestinian plight—anticipating Israel’s brutal and disproportionate response. Yet, why does Israel fall into this trap? One possibility is that it aligns with certain political goals. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, facing corruption charges, may benefit from war as a distraction. The Likud party’s vision of a Greater Israel—encompassing Palestinian territories, Jordan, and parts of Saudi Arabia and Egypt—could also be a factor. Some speculate this violence is a deliberate provocation to unify Jews through fear, and possibly tied to messianic expectations.
Netanyahu is a Revisionist Zionist, this is their long-term plan.
This self-fulfilling prophecy is reflected in online discussions, such as an Israeli subreddit where users lament being hated globally. They attribute this to irrational antisemitism, dismissing the role of the Israel Defense Forces’ actions, such as killing children, which fuel international outrage. This mindset—“They’ll hate us regardless, so we might as well give them a reason”—makes them vulnerable to exploitation by corrupt leaders like Netanyahu.
Breaking the Fear and Control Cycle
The fear of the Lord is a fountain of life, that one may turn away from the snares of death.
Proverbs 14:27 ESV
We must guard against siege mentalities like Masada syndrome. By convincing ourselves that the world is inherently against us, we risk acting in ways that bring about the very persecution we fear. Focusing on external threats to define our identity can lead us to become what we dread, fulfilling a prophecy of our own making due to our own unacceptable actions.
Breaking this cycle requires rejecting fear-based narratives and fostering a sense of agency over our own actions and beliefs.
To guard against exploitation, we must shift our focus from the fear of man to the fear of God.
Human fears—stoked by manufactured enemies and self-fulfilling prophecies—keep us trapped in cycles of division and control. A reverent fear of a perfect moral agent beyond us offers a higher perspective, grounding us in principles of justice, compassion, and accountability. By prioritizing a divine wisdom earthly manipulation, we become less susceptible to the provocative tactics of those who thrive on our fear, fostering a resilience that unites rather than divides. Establishment of this spiritual foundation empowers us to reject their deadly paranoia and act with clarity, so we break free from those divisive narratives that political systems use exploit to consolidate power.
When dates like January 6th or October 7th become synonymous with events, it’s not just shorthand—it’s propaganda.
These dates are weaponized to anchor emotions, shape narratives, and erase inconvenient context. For MAGA supporters, understanding January 6th’s framing offers a lens to see through the manipulation surrounding October 7th.
What you see in this picture depends on whose branding and narrative you accept.
Both events, though different in scale, follow a similar playbook: start the story at a moment of crisis to paint one side as the ultimate victim and the other as irredeemable villains, sidelining the deeper grievances that led to the outburst.
January 6th: A Reaction, Not an Insurrection
The MAGA movement views January 6, 2021, not as an “insurrection” but as a response to perceived electoral theft. Years of distrust in institutions—fueled by media bias, dismissive labels like “deplorables,” and a sense of being marginalized—reached a boiling point after the 2020 election.
Supporters saw anomalies: Biden’s 81.3 million votes outpacing Obama’s 69.5 million (2008) despite a lackluster campaign; late-night vote “dumps” in states like Michigan (e.g., a 3:50 AM update with 54,497 votes for Biden vs. 4,718 for Trump); bellwether counties favoring Trump yet not predicting the outcome; and reports of poll watchers being denied access in key locations like Philadelphia and Detroit’s TCF Center.
Beware of accusations like “threat to our democracy” coming from elites and government officials. More often than not this is just a propaganda technique. Representatives aren’t the ‘demos’ and sometimes don’t represent the true vote, will or interests of the people.
For example, in Philadelphia, observers were kept 20–100 feet from counting tables, citing COVID-19 protocols, raising suspicions of unmonitored ballot handling. Stories of unsecured voting machines and trucks allegedly delivering ballots further stoked fears of fraud, especially given mail-in ballots’ known vulnerabilities (e.g., 43% of 2020 ballots were mail-in, per Pew Research, with historical cases of fraud like New York’s 1948 scandal). Whether these concerns held up in court (over 60 lawsuits were dismissed) is beside the point—what matters is the reality of widespread distrust. MAGA supporters felt their votes were at risk, and “Stop the Steal” was a peaceful rally that spiraled when a massive crowd moved to the Capitol. Some, like a Hill staffer I met, called it terrifying, advocating lethal force to stop it. But this ignores 2020’s context: months of “mostly peaceful” protests with burning buildings and broken glass were tolerated, even celebrated, by liberal elites.
All summer long—never called an insurrection.
Why was January 6 different?
Because the crowd—rust-belt workers, veterans, and ordinary Americans—challenged the establishment, not the usual activist class. The “insurrection” label was swiftly applied, despite no police officers dying that day (Officer Sicknick died January 7 from strokes, not direct injuries, per the D.C. Medical Examiner). The only immediate casualty was Ashli Babbitt, an Air Force veteran shot by Capitol Police while trespassing. Yet, the FBI hunted participants with unprecedented zeal, suggesting a need to brand the event as a threat to democracy. Questions linger: Were agitators like Ray Epps, seen inciting the crowd but lightly investigated, planted to escalate chaos? The lack of transparency fuels suspicion.
Similarly, October 7, 2023, was not an unprovoked act of “terrorism” but a desperate escalation after decades of Palestinian grievances. Since Israel’s 2007 blockade of Gaza, 2.3 million Palestinians have lived in what critics call an open-air prison. The IDF’s practice of administrative detention—holding Palestinians without trial, sometimes indefinitely—denies basic rights.
From 1948’s Nakba to ongoing settlement expansion, Palestinians face systemic displacement, with Gaza’s conditions (e.g., 50% unemployment, per UN data) fueling unrest. Hamas’s stated goal on October 7 was to capture hostages for prisoner swaps, a tactic rooted in this context, not mindless savagery.
Yet, the Zionist narrative, amplified by Western media, starts the clock at October 7, framing it as an attack on innocent Israelis. Embellished claims—like debunked reports of “beheaded babies” (retracted by outlets like CNN)—flooded headlines to evoke horror and justify Israel’s response, which killed over 40,000 Palestinians by mid-2025, per Gaza Health Ministry estimates.
Do you see men or do you see terrorists? These men and their children are not Hamas. They are people stuck in a killing field.
The Propaganda Playbook
Both events reveal a shared propaganda strategy:
Date Branding: Naming events by dates—January 6th, October 7th—creates emotional anchors. It’s no coincidence that “9/11” or “October 7th” evoke instant reactions, stripping away context like Gaza’s blockade or 2020’s electoral distrust. This glittering generality tactic makes the date a rallying cry, as seen in how “January 6th” became synonymous with “insurrection” despite no legal convictions for insurrection among over 1,200 charged.
Selective Starting Points: Propagandists begin the story at the moment of crisis to paint their side as blameless. January 6 ignores years of disenfranchisement; October 7 erases decades of Palestinian oppression. This cherry-picking ensures the narrative serves power—whether the U.S. establishment or Israel’s government.
Accuse the Other Side: Both cases accuse the aggrieved of the very crime they protest. MAGA supporters, rallying to “save democracy,” were branded anti-democratic. Palestinians, resisting occupation, are labeled terrorists. This mirrors the projection tactic, where the powerful deflect their own failures onto the powerless.
Amplify and Suppress: Media and political actors amplify selective details (e.g., Babbitt’s death downplayed, “beheaded babies” hyped) while suppressing context. The FBI’s aggressive pursuit of January 6 participants, contrasted with leniency toward 2020 rioters, parallels Israel’s disproportionate response to Hamas versus settler violence.
Countering the Narrative
Critics might argue that January 6 was a clear attack on democracy, with 140 officers injured and $2.7 million in Capitol damage, or that October 7’s 1,200 deaths justify Israel’s retaliation.
But this misses the point: the issue isn’t the events’ severity but how they’re framed to obscure root causes. January 6’s crowd wasn’t plotting a coup; they were reacting to perceived fraud, fueled by denied access to vote counting and anomalies like Virginia’s consistent 55/45 vote splits.
October 7 wasn’t random terror but a response to Gaza’s strangulation, Palestinians tired of oppression—wanting self-determination. Both are distorted to vilify the disenfranchised and protect the powerful.
Conclusion
Dates as names aren’t neutral—they’re propaganda tools to erase history and rally emotions.
MAGA supporters see through January 6’s “insurrection” label because they know the context: a frustrated populace, denied transparency, reacting to a system they distrusted.
Apply that lens to October 7, and the parallels are stark: a people under siege, their grievances ignored, all inhabitants branded as terrorists to justify annihilation.
The deliberate killing of children—whether through abortion or in conflict zones like Gaza—is often defended by opposing ideological camps using eerily similar logic.
Both sides, whether progressives celebrating abortion or conservatives excusing the civilian deaths in Gaza, rely on hiding their atrocities under a thick blanket of dehumanizing language, while using speculative reasoning to justify their positions.
I’ve walked away from online friendships over this hypocrisy: “progressive” friends who are vegetarian and biology-savvy yet loudly cheer for abortion, or those self-proclaimed Christians who shrug off thousands deaths of Palestinian kids as mere “collateral damage” and a normal part of war.
This blog dives into how both sides use the same flawed reasoning, spotlighting the Freakonomics future peace case for abortion, and argues why it’s always wrong to kill a child—no matter the excuse—and why we must stop playing God.
Dehumanizing Through Words
Words are powerful, and both groups wield them to hide the truth. Abortion advocates use terms like “fetus” or “reproductive choice” to make the act sound clinical, distancing themselves from the reality of ending a human life. I’ve seen friends who’d cry over a harmed insects dismiss a fetus as a “clump of cells,” despite knowing it’s a developing human.
Pro-abortion folks may do as the pro-genocide folks do and say that this is AI-generated. But their denial doesn’t change the truth.
Similarly, those defending the killing of kids in Gaza call it “counter-terrorism” or frame it as a response to October 7th, glossing over decades of Zionist violence against those who are indigenous to Palestine. This linguistic sleight-of-hand—whether medical jargon or military euphemisms—strips away the humanity of the victims, making it easier to stomach the brutality.
The Freakonomics Trap: Justifying Death with What-Ifs
The Freakonomics argument, laid out by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner, is a prime example of how this reasoning works.
They claimed legalizing abortion after Roe v. Wade cut crime rates in the ‘90s by reducing “unwanted” kids who might’ve grown up to be criminals. It’s a cold, numbers-driven pitch: kill now to prevent hypothetical future problems. This mirrors the logic of those who justify dead kids in Gaza as a necessary cost to stop future terrorists.
Others, like US Senator Lindsey Graham, have suggested nuking Gaza, stating, “Give Israel the bombs they need to end the war that they can’t afford to lose.” Israeli leaders on i24NEWS have echoed this, calling for the extermination of everyone in Gaza, including babies, as “every child, every baby in Gaza is an enemy.” These statements reveal a chilling willingness to annihilate children based on speculative fears, just as Freakonomics justifies abortion by imagining future criminals.
They’re not sleeping. They were targeted for elimination.
Both hinge on a false dilemma: either kill now or face catastrophic consequences later. This binary ignores alternatives, like the IRA peace process in Northern Ireland, where dialogue and systemic change brought decades of conflict to a halt without resorting to mass killing. Peacebuilding, not extermination, addressed the root causes while preserving lives.
Why Consequentialism Fails
This kind of thinking—called consequentialism—puts outcomes over principles. It assumes a kid in the womb or a warzone is a potential threat, not a person with potential. But life doesn’t work that way.
Plenty of people born into poverty or conflict grow up to do great things. The Freakonomics logic ignores that, just like the idea that a Gaza kid will inevitably become a terrorist.
Plus, it’s unfair to punish a child for what they might do or for what adults—like their parents or community leaders—have done. A fetus isn’t responsible for its mom’s situation, just as a Palestinian kid isn’t to blame for Hamas. Killing them shifts the burden of adult failures onto the innocent.
Do we truly want to live in a Minority Report world where governments choose who lives or dies based on predictive algorithms?
The Sanctity of Life Over Playing God
Every major ethical tradition, religious or secular, values human life, especially the most vulnerable. Kids, born or unborn, embody that vulnerability.
When we justify their deaths with fancy words or stats, we’re opening a dangerous door. History shows where this leads—think Holocaust or Rwanda, where dehumanization fueled mass killing.
The Freakonomics case and Gaza justifications risk the same moral rot, treating some lives as disposable.
Our job isn’t to play God, deciding who’s worthy of life based on our fears or predictions. It’s to act with justice and protect the defenseless, not to end their lives to fix society’s problems.
Wrapping It Up
The hypocrisy of cheering abortion while mourning other forms of life, or calling yourself Christian while excusing dead kids in Gaza, reveals a shared flaw—believing their creative semantics or future self-defense reasoning can remove the stain of their sin.
The Freakonomics argument and genocidal rhetoric from figures like Feiglin and Graham both reduce children to pawns in a bigger game, ignoring their inherent dignity. It’s always wrong to kill a child—whether for an adult’s choices or a fear of what they might become.
Instead of playing God with false dilemmas, we need to follow examples of taking a third option—like the IRA peace process—and focus on real solutions: respect for a legitimate grievance over stolen land and diplomacy, in support of moms and investment in communities.
Only by valuing every life can we build a world that’s just and safe for future generations.
Cultural erasure is often discussed in the context of dramatic examples. Communist efforts to eradicate religious practice or the forced assimilation of Native Americans are two clear instances. Another is the British schoolgirl punished for wearing a Union Jack on a day meant to celebrate cultural diversity. Yet, a more insidious form of cultural erasure is sweeping through the United States, infiltrating every small town under the guise of free markets and capitalism.
What I’m referring to is corporatism, partnered with consumerism. This country was once defined by businesses owned by average people—those “mom and pop” shops. That is no longer the case. Capital and control are increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few (see this video on BlackRock), and choice is largely an illusion in this age of mega-corporations. We have become a nation of employees. Yes, small businesses and boutiques still exist, but they are the exception. Our regulatory regime favors economies of scale, benefiting established players who can absorb compliance costs.
On the road—hauling commodities—this economic transformation is alarming to anyone who cares to notice. Local mills and grain elevators have been bought up or are in the process of being acquired by major players. Businesses where locals once knew the owner have been transferred, one after another, to corporate boards far removed from the operations.This trend spans every industry. Thriving downtowns and corner stores have been replaced by Walmarts. Ironically, when communities regain a “local” option, it’s often a Dollar General. The impact extends beyond retail. Doctors can no longer afford to practice independently, and hospitals are absorbed by larger systems to manage ballooning compliance costs. Local communities have lost true choice as corporate brands dominate.
Even decisions within our towns are outsourced. Consider the plan to bulldoze Slifer House, a local landmark designed by a notable architect, listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and honoring a man who played a significant role in the town’s history. This building, originally a private residence, later an orphanage, and then a hospital, faces demolition. The board deciding its fate is disconnected from the community, concerned only with maximizing revenue at the expense of our shared heritage.
I spoke with a township supervisor, a relative, and received the typical canned response about property rights. But this boilerplate conservatism fails in an era where BlackRock owns vast swaths of the economy, and we all now owe our souls to the company store. It’s not a free market when Larry Fink can mandate DEI policies across every place we shop or work. Consumer choice doesn’t exist when all options on the shelf (see this video on BlackRock) are owned by the same entities. Property rights may have built the middle-class, but appeals to them cannot address this systemic erosion of agency and destruction of ownership society by the current corporatism.
A town known for its Victorian charm and yet can’t protect this heritage from corporate interests.
This corporatist-consumerist machine erodes local identity and sovereignty by homogenizing communities. Regional dialects, traditions, and histories are drowned out by standardized corporate aesthetics and practices. The local diner with its quirky charm is replaced by a chain restaurant with identical menus and decor nationwide. The family-owned hardware store, where the owner knew your name, gives way to a big-box retailer staffed by transient workers. These shifts strip away the unique character of our towns, leaving behind this sanitized, generic, board approved and predictable landscape that could be anywhere—or nowhere.
Retaining local identity and sovereignty requires deliberate resistance to this tide. Communities must protect what matters to them, prioritize policies that support small businesses, such as giving tax incentives for independent retailers (rather than Jeff Bezos) or simply streamlined regulations that don’t disproportionately burden the little guy. Local governments should not side with entities outside of town, but rather should empower residents of the community to have a say in decisions affecting historic landmarks like Slifer House, ensuring that distant corporate interests don’t override community values. Grassroots movements can foster local pride by celebrating regional festivals, preserving historic sites, and promoting artisans who embody the town’s heritage.
Better options closer to home?
Sovereignty also means reclaiming economic agency. Communities could explore cooperative business models, where locals collectively own and operate enterprises, keeping profits and decision-making power in the hands of residents. Supporting farmers’ markets, local craftspeople, and regional supply chains can reduce dependence on corporate giants. Education plays a role too—teaching younger generations the value of their town’s history and traditions fosters a sense of ownership that no corporate boardroom can replicate.
Ultimately, the fight against cultural erasure through corporatism and consumerism is a fight for self-determination. It’s about choosing to preserve what makes our communities distinct, even when the deck is stacked in favor of scale and sucking out profits. By valuing local identity over corporate convenience, we can reclaim the soul of our towns and ensure they remain places worth calling home. Property rights were meant to protect local control—not to consolidate then outsource all decisions to out-of-towners.
Holocausts and genocides occur because atrocities are obscured by layers of justification, propaganda, and denial. Historically, these layers have enabled mass violence by fostering ignorance or apathy among populations. In Nazi Germany, the genocide of six million Jews was justified through antisemitic propaganda blaming Jews for economic woes and civil unrest, despite only a small fraction being involved in communist movements. Most Germans did not need to endorse the “Final Solution”; they only needed to remain ignorant or in denial, facilitated by censorship, secrecy, and moral rationalizations.
This pattern of denial and justification is evident in other genocides, such as the Communist purges in the Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia, where millions were killed to eliminate perceived threats to a utopian vision. The logic behind these atrocities often follows a “utopian cost-benefit analysis,” akin to the Trolley Problem in ethics: committing a painful or immoral act is justified if it promises immense societal benefits. For example, in Stalin’s purges, an estimated 680,000–1.2 million people were executed to “secure” the revolution, with the promise of a classless society outweighing individual lives. This reasoning holds that if a perfect society is achievable, no sacrifice is too great.
This same moral calculus can be applied to the ongoing conflict in Gaza, which constitutes a genocide. By examining the mechanisms of denial, propaganda, and prejudice, we can see how atrocities are enabled today, just as they were historically.
The Gaza Conflict as Genocide
The situation in Gaza meets the criteria for genocide under the UN Genocide Convention, which defines it as acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s 2023 reference to Palestinians as “Amalek”—a Biblical group the Israelites were commanded to exterminate—signals intent to dehumanize and destroy. This rhetoric has been followed by actions: the bombing of 70% of Gaza’s healthcare facilities (WHO data), the blockade of food and water leading to starvation (UNRWA reports of 1 in 5 Gazans facing acute hunger), and incidents like the February 2024 attack on a crowd seeking aid, killing 112 civilians (per Gaza authorities). These actions systematically target the conditions necessary for Palestinian survival, aligning with the Genocide Convention’s criteria.
Layers of Denial and Propaganda
Genocides thrive when atrocities are hidden or justified. In Gaza, denial is facilitated by restricting information. The unprecedented killing of 185 journalists since October 2023 (Committee to Protect Journalists data) limits independent reporting, while Israel’s control over access to Gaza restricts international observers. The proposed U.S. TikTok ban, justified on national security grounds, may also suppress unfiltered footage from Gaza, as the platform has been a key source of firsthand accounts. For example, X posts from Gazan users often share videos of destruction, but these are dismissed as unverified or biased, while Israeli military statements are rarely scrutinized with the same skepticism.
Does Israel deserve destruction because they voted for a terror sponsor named Netanyahu?
Propaganda further obscures the truth. The narrative that Gazans “deserve” their suffering because they elected Hamas in 2006 ignores key facts: only 8% of Gaza’s current population (given the median age of 18 and population growth) could have voted in that election, and no elections have occurred since. Collective punishment of civilians, including children who comprise 47% of Gaza’s population, is justified through this lens of collective guilt, a tactic reminiscent of historical genocides.
Prejudice and Moral Reasoning
Prejudice fuels apathy. In Western discourse, Islamophobia often leads to skepticism of Palestinian claims, even when supported by evidence from groups like Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch. For example, reports of torture in Israeli detention centers, corroborated by Palestinian Christians and secular activists, are dismissed, while IDF explanations face less scrutiny. This selective skepticism mirrors the antisemitic prejudice that enabled the Holocaust, where Jewish suffering was ignored or blamed on the victims.
The “utopian cost-benefit analysis” in Gaza is tied to ideological goals, such as fulfilling religious prophecies (e.g., Zionist visions of a Greater Israel) or ensuring Israeli security and long-term peace. These goals are presented as justifying extreme measures, much like the Nazi vision of a “pure” Germany or the Communist dream of a classless society. The logic posits that eliminating Hamas, even at the cost of civilian lives, will bring lasting peace. Yet, this ignores the disproportionate harm: 70% of Gaza’s casualties are women and children (UN data), undermining claims of precision targeting.
Addressing Counterarguments
Critics argue that Israel’s actions are defensive, targeting Hamas rather than Palestinians as a group. They point to Hamas’s use of civilian areas for military operations, which complicates urban warfare. However, the scale of destruction—leveling entire neighborhoods, as documented by satellite imagery—and the blockade’s impact on non-combatants (like the malnourished dying baby in the featured picture) suggest a broader intent. While Hamas’s actions are indefensible, they do not justify collective punishment, which violates international humanitarian law.
Others claim the genocide label is inappropriate because Palestinians are not being exterminated on the scale of the Holocaust. Yet, genocide does not require total destruction; the Rwandan genocide, for instance, killed 800,000 Tutsis in 100 days, and Gaza’s death toll, combined with deliberate starvation and displacement, fits the legal definition of targeting a group “in part.”
The Role of Silence
Silence enables genocide. In Nazi Germany, many who knew of the camps chose not to act, fearing repercussions or believing the propaganda. Today, those aware of Gaza’s suffering often choose apathy, swayed by prejudice or the promise of a greater good. This is not to equate all silence with complicity—some lack access to reliable information—but ignoring well-documented atrocities, such as those reported by the UN and NGOs, perpetuates harm.
Conclusion
Holocausts and genocides persist because societies allow them to, through denial, prejudice, and flawed moral reasoning. The situation in Gaza, with its systematic destruction and dehumanizing rhetoric, bears the hallmarks of genocide, enabled by global silence and selective outrage. To prevent history’s repetition, we must challenge propaganda, demand accountability, and reject the notion that any utopian goal justifies the sacrifice of innocent lives. Speak out, seek the truth, and act—because silence in the face of atrocity is a choice with consequences.
With God, all things are possible. That was a phrase that got me in trouble. If pursued to the full literal extent this is an assurance which leads to disappointment. All things may be possible, but in the sense that you only want what is about to happen. What we have is more like the quote attributed to Henry Ford: “Any color the customer wants, as long as it’s black.”
Anything is possible if you want the possible.
It is what it is. That has more or less been my life of the past few years. Marriage has been good for me. There is less need for a fight for a faith in the impossible when the actual has been decent enough. This could simply be a matter of age. You’ll become a little agnostic after being on the other side and seeing some of those foolish hopes of a child. Not saying it is impossible, but it is just improbable that my Filipino son will be over six feet tall as he hopes.
The biggest chance in my life is not asking the question why anymore. Now I am that father figure supposed to give answers and needing to play a stabilizing role. There is just not enough time, the dishes need to be done, the baby needs to be fed, and nobody could ever answer my questions. It seems my own answers were as good as any. Why is a cry for answers, an underlying belief in an authority that can answer. Why ask why if there is no authority to ask?
Sunday evening went a bit sideways soon after my wife and I crawled into bed. I had seen a story, soon before going to the stairs for the night, that made me briefly consider that it could fit the profile of a family friend: A ten-year-old girl being swept away by the swift river current, friends trying to help, an adult woman going in after them. But then, now in bed, I saw the post on social media confirming that indeed it was a tragedy that was hitting very close to home.
It was Claue
Kevin and Michelle are a couple very similar to my wife and I. We met a few years back at a Filipino-American event. He was also employed in an engineering related field, a guy with German background similar to my own, and also had chronic back issues that gave us a common bond considering what a pain my neck had been. But what I liked most about him is that he was a family man who put his wife and children first. Michelle likewise is a dedicated mother, one of those hardworking and unassuming types—who offered her quiet support to my wife as we dealt with the immigration gauntlet.
Claue had come with her mother from the Philippines. Like my son, she had no real choice in the matter and suddenly found herself in South Williamsport with a school of American kids. Unlike my son, she was shy and spoke very little English. And, from what I recall, it was difficult for her initially to leave her mother’s side. That’s why I was so happy to see her in a basketball jersey—it meant that she was finding her niche.
I knew the river was a special place for the mother and daughter. Many pictures were posted of Claue wading in the shallow parts and enjoying a break.
On May 4th, with baby in the stroller, Claue was splashing around again as her mother watched from shore. The river was up just a little after some rains—the water slightly murky at this point—and she slipped. The current pulled her away into deeper water where she was clearly in distress. Her two friends tried going out to save her and also were being swept downstream. Michelle, seeing it all unfold, did not hesitate to enter the water despite—like her daughter—being unable to swim.
The whole group would soon end up over the dam in the turbulence that is known to keep even experienced swimmers trap in its watery grasp. Miraculously Michelle was pulled out. But she did not escape without injury, she was taken to the hospital where she was treated for broken heart syndrome and remained for days. The words “help me Mom” the last thing she heard her precious Claue say before she disappeared. The two other children were saved—only Claue lost.
A design to keep dams from washing out keeps the victim in the froth where even a great swimmer will be helpless and in danger of drowning. That our friend, the mother, escaped is a harrowing account requiring presence of mind, will to survive, and a hand from above.
The rescue operation has changed into recovery, but no signs of Claue have emerged a week after she disappeared. I’ve set up a GoFundMe for the family as we wait and hope for our dear Claue to be brought home.
Waist deep in tragedy…
My life has been rather average, I suppose, in that I can’t claim it has been very tragic in comparison to some. Nevertheless, there is a ‘tortured soul’ aspect to my existence that has once been called out by my little sister and is to some extent true. I do tend to feel things very deeply and cannot ignore all the suffering in the world as some seem a little more able to do. And always with this care came a big question: Why?
Why do such awful things happen to such undeserving people?
It is a question that will stay swirling in your mind if you let it. Religious people will say it is for some greater reason we don’t know—the judgmental will try to assign blame with their Monday morning quarterbacking skills—and both never satisfied me. If death is a path to salvation for a child, why would we ever oppose abortion? We would celebrate the millions of babies sent straight to God to eternal worship. And if you’re one of the people who think life can be risk free—that all suffering is preventable—you’re either a very lucky person or as dumb as a box of rocks.
Every year there are around twenty cases of commotio cordis. That is when a hit within a certain window of time stops the heart. A young baseball player takes a line drive to the chest—collapses and dies.
Does this make me a monster for allowing my son to play this dangerous game?
No!
Someone could spend their life hiding under their bed sheets, afraid to do anything, and get hit by a re-entering Soviet-era spacecraft. The only tragedy, in that case, being that a person so risk adverse has not lived life and is already dead. My cousin Uriah, who was diagnosed with terminal lung cancer near the start of the Covid shutdowns, had every reason to remain home and ‘safe’ from the disease—yet, with only a year to live, he decided he would live. My most cherished memories with him would not have been possible if he picked a path of total risk avoidance. Life is always risky and we cannot prevent tragedy by avoiding it. Why huddled in fear?
They want easy answers. Those who look for someone to blame or explain it by some hidden heavenly cause. But the true reality is murkier. Job was doing everything right and yet his friends found fault. That’s not to say that we should not make an attempt to manage probabilities. But something much bigger than us ultimately holds the dice and there may be no reason why other than that it happened. Some can cope with a simple explanation—bad parenting or cosmic plan—great if that works for you.
Go with the flow…
Unlike my siblings, who were basically fish, I could not float and could barely swim. My mom had tried to help and she sent me to swimming lessons, but when the instructor lowered me in the water I would stiffen up like a board and sink. Some of the problem was that my BMI was probably five, skinny, and my lips would turn blue after a minute or two in the water. All I could think about is getting back out and being cozy wrapped in a towel. Add to that, one of my earliest memories was laying face down in a pool thinking it was game over.
That’s the funny part of advice given to “just relax” or “be confident,” we would without all the fear, anxiety, experience or regret in our lives, right?
But then those who fight for control, who do not deal with life as it truly is, they are most miserable. Acceptance is key. It is what it is and what will be will be—because there is no other answer I can find. That is also to truly choose compassion rather than judgment—it is people with the answers who are harsh in times of tragedy, who truly know nothing and yet believe they are morally superior or act as if they never fail. Those who don’t lead with mercy either lack self-awareness or have never been chewed up and spit out by those beasts that lurk on the edges of their placid waters—which could draw them in at any moment despite their assumed sure-footing or preparation.
Faith too can also become a banal attempt to right equations that can’t be righted. This is where I can appreciate Orthodoxy when it doesn’t offer answers, but does offer that a priest (with the right permission) may lead a service for a non-Orthodox person as an act compassion. I would be more impressed if someone could command Claue to rise and she walked out of the river. However—with no better answers—I learned to be content with compassion as an answer.
Asking why does not ease a mother’s pain, nor does criticism, nor do those “God has a plan” pat answers. Sometimes the best we can do is sit together, talk and laugh a little, humanity has continually won against those devouring forces of nature by sacrifice for the tribe or looking out for each other. Hugs never tell us why, but they do silence those nagging questions even for a moment. A tear with a friend is medicine for a broken heart. It is better to rest, not knowing, and be okay with it, because we’ll never know why…
Small, initially shy and yet energetic, Claue came from the Philippines with her mother knowing very little English. This year she went out for basketball and seemed to be adjusting. Her classmates miss their friend.
The point of Trump’s tariffs is to get rid of all tariffs. I can feel the blank stares of my ideological and indoctrinated friends who are hyperventilating about a blip in stock prices and loses for billionaires.
I get it, Libertarians, you really do not want the government to do anything and Thomas Sowell said stuff about tariffs being bad, so in unison you bleat: “Tariffs are taxes!”
But your sloganeering is not argumentation and—while I generally believe less is more in the case of government—I’m stuck here in the real world with Trump.
Economic theory has it’s place, as do ideals, and yet this isn’t a matter of Sowell said it, I believe it, that settles it.
Marxists also believe their man’s theory will work if properly applied. Ideological people can’t accept when their theory doesn’t work in reality, they will always insist “that wasn’t true [insert ideology here]” and continue on their merry way muttering that next time it will work—if they could just brainwash more children and eliminate more enemies of the revolution. There’s never a reevaluation in light of the actual evidence.
True X hasn’t been tried.
So, without further ado, let’s dive into where free trade fails and Thomas Sowell after we do that…
Can Hell Be Made Worse?
After the devastating earthquake of 2010, I joined a group of young people on a trip to Haiti. It was a Christian mission and hosted by a Haitian pastor. This grandfatherly man had, at one point, been in business and ran a factory manufacturing clothes.
While I’m not going to make a case against charity or giving, there is often a cost that is unseen and a greater dependency created in the end. The Haitian pastor was forced to shutter his operation and lay off all of his employees after the combination of cheap imports and donations made it impossible to compete in the marketplace.
But the even sadder story was in a place in the country called “little Africa” where rice farmers tried to make ends meet. No, they were never rich. However, they had scraped a living out of cultivation up until Bill Clinton started to dump subsidized American rice on the Haitian market. These people were desperate. They mobbed our delivery of a bit of relief and aid.
I know, I know, this isn’t real free trade. But it is the kind of situation we are in. Putting our favorite theories and fandom aside, and ideals that could possibly work if all abided by the same rules or assumptions, we don’t live in that fantasy land. In the real world, it is like Haiti where subsidized products are exported and some will disproportionately suffer consequences.
Yes, in theory, Haiti still benefits, as a whole, from importing cheap or free stuff. But we can also make the argument that this kind of unfair trade has undermined a situation that was already fragile. A government that would protect Haitian industries would not let subsidized products be dumped without something stabilizing in return.
Thomas Sowell vs Donald Trump
Sowell is a great economist and provides a good answer to ‘progressive’ theories. His being a guest on the Rush Limbaugh show has made him a favorite of conservatives—wanting validation for their free market and small government views.
As an academic, Sowell’s work dealt mostly with economic theory and to argue against all tariffs he uses abstraction “protectionism hurts market efficiency” and that they don’t solve issues like wealth gap, that they favor special interests, and retaliation against tariffs hurts exports, and they lead to long-term stagnation. And he may be right if we lived in a vacuum sealed petri dish.
Trump, by contrast, lives in the very messy world of politics and negotiations. He runs on instincts and intuition, not by intellectual exercises or writing papers or creating a set of principles. He comes in with the big ask, the threat or the bluff, trying to disrupt and even create a bit of anxiety in the other side, before eventually bringing this process to a resolution that makes all parties leave with a feeling like they’ve won.
This is how we got from the “fire and fury” rhetoric—with the political class and corporate media hyperventilating about this being a path to war—to Trump being the first US President to set foot in North Korea and then shaking hand of Kim Jong Un. It is just his method of changing the conversation or moving the Overton window. You can’t get from point A to point B without shaking up the old status quo a bit.
Trump isn’t ideological, like Sowell, or trying to live off a written in stone economic code of conduct. No, when he has leverage, or sees an opportunity, he uses it. There are many countries tariffing US goods. And our trade deficit is enormous. So why is it so out of line for our President to cry foul or use the threat of reciprocal tariffs in other to back these countries down and then get a better deal for his country?
Surely Sowell isn’t against pushing for the elimination of tariffs—which likely is the end game. And, furthermore, Trump’s brazen actions are far more likely to get results than the fine professor’s best lecture on economics. Already other countries are lining up to start talks about removing their unfair tariffs against the US. It is a game of musical chairs and you don’t want to be the last one looking for a seat.
Power, Principles, and Persuasion
Marxism is about the application of power, Libertarians are about strict adherence to a set of principles, but Trump is different. He is about persuasion.
Marxism is a hammer—raw power of the mob, trying to smashing the old order to hand control to the workers, or so it claims. In reality, it’s a machine for centralization: seize the levers, dictate terms, and dress it up as justice. Think Soviet bread lines or Mao’s famines—equality morphing into control. Libertarians, by contrast, wield a rulebook, not a fist. Their creed—liberty, markets, entirely hands off—is sacred, rigid as stone. Tariffs? Sacrilege. Sowell represents this. Marxism a power grab, and libertarianism a fortress of unattainable ideals—both are better to be left as theory rather than an approach to real world negotiations.
Marxism would’ve sparked a trade war, not talks; libertarianism would’ve let markets bleed out. Trump’s different—he’s making countries dance. China grumbles but hints at softening; the EU’s haggling too. Stocks have dipped, and Sowell’s costs loom, but the moves are now undeniable: Vietnam’s concessions, India’s play, Japan’s hustle. It’s not a system winning—it’s Trump, raw and loud, proving persuasion trumps power or principle. He’s bending the world his way, one bluff at a time. He is about persuasion—messy, unscripted, a vibe that bends the room.
Tariffs are the threat, but trade that is truly free and fair is the actual goal. And Trump is further along in achieving this simply for his boldness alone. Maybe he’s not doing it the ‘right’ way or by conventional means, yet who says that we can’t try a new approach to get some better results than we’ve been getting? The people who have been leaving the American worker behind tot decades now? As my 13-year-old son would say: Let him cook!
Irregular Ideation 