Setting aside moral principle to serve a greater good means you have no moral principles.
Moral relativists love their hypotheticals: “What if you had a chance to travel back in time and kill baby Hitler?”
Once they can establish the answer as “yes” then pretty soon thereafter anyone who stands in their way is a Nazi. Or, in other words, the morality of “everyone I don’t like is literally Hitler” where you will basically become Hitler killing all of those baby Hitlers before they become Hitler—kill them all, you can’t be too careful!
It is ends justify the means morality that justifies, ultimately, the most heinous and horrible acts by one projecting a possible outcome as an excuse to violate another person—in some cases even before they drew a first breath.
For example, the Freakonomics case for abortion pointing to how inner-city crime rates dropped in correlation with black babies being killed—used as a moral justification.
Contrast this with Matthew 12:20, with Jesus: “He will not break a crushed blade of grass…”
This prejudice is behind every genocide or ethnic cleansing campaign. The excuse: “We don’t want to kill babies, but if we don’t ‘mow the grass‘ then they’ll grow up to kill us.” I mean, it’s not like that attitude will create a backlash or stir the anger of the population being cynically targeted for a trimming back, right?
Oh well, at least when you are starting at the very bottom, relying on self-defense by precrime judgment and a doctrine of preemption, there is no slippery slope to be concerned about: Morality becomes a race of who can eliminate their potential opponents most efficiently rather than a social contract between people trying to live peaceably with their neighbors.
(Im)Morality of the ‘God’s Plan’ Excuse…
One of the sidesteps of treating others with human decency is that it is all part of God’s plan. Biblical fundamentalists often use a similar kind of ends justify the means moral reasoning as the far-left—except they dress it up as faith and seeing the bigger perspective.
This is their excuse to be Biblical, but not Christian. The moment you raise a moral objection about anything they’ll find their loophole in Scripture: “Oh, yes, God said not to take innocent life, but He also told Israel to wipeout the Amalekites, so it is up to us to decide who gets slaughtered or saved.”
This is the God’s eye perspective Jesus addressed in Mark 7:10-12:
For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is Corban (that is, devoted to God)—then you no longer let them do anything for their father or mother.
What the Biblical experts were doing was using one command to nullify another by a greater good moral reasoning. Of course they, in their own minds, were the more spiritual. They had convinced themselves that—by neglecting their duty to parents—they were seeing things from God’s eyes and just better than everyone else. But, in reality, this is rationalization and an excuse to be immoral.
Morality isn’t about taking the God’s eye view, it is about our practically applying the Golden Rule or the law of reciprocity described in the passages below:
For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.
Matthew 6:14-15 NIV
“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
Matthew 7:1-5 NIV
Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment.
James 2:12-13 NIV
See the pattern here?
What we put into the world is what we will receive back. If we do not show any mercy to those under our power, then we will not be shown mercy. And that’s the point behind the parable that Jesus told about a man forgiven a great debt—then goes out demanding repayment from the man who owed him.
Seeing things from God’s perspective—according to this—is to apply Micah 6:8:
He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.
There are no excuses to set aside normal morality for the sake of God’s plan.
There is no special exemption given for a chosen race of people either.
Throughout history the most evil of men have excused their atrocities using God’s will. It is the reasoning of the Crusader’s command, based on 2 Timothy 2:19, of “Kill them, for God knows his own.”
The ‘Christian’ West killed more innocent people in the Holy Lands than Islamists.
With that kind of thinking, everything will become justified as part of God’s plan if you zoom it out and, therefore, we can’t take a moral stand against anything. If it is God’s plan that babies are killed—then who are you to decry it as murder?
This is logic which can neutralize every moral stance or turn every evil deed into some kind of ultimate good—if you just see it from ‘God’s perspective’ it all becomes okay. Of course, at that point, accepting this, there is no morality—once everything is relative to God’s will or the outcome that we call good.
It essentially replaces the Golden Rule with: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you—except if you can explain away the abuse by some kind of greater good excuse.”
Act Justly, Love Mercy, That’s the Conclusion…
Moral relativism, whether cloaked in the guise of achieving a greater good or justified as part of God’s plan, erodes the foundation of true morality—the Golden Rule.
By excusing heinous acts through hypothetical necessities or our ‘divine’ rationalizations, we are becoming the very monsters we claim to oppose. True morality demands consistency: acting justly, loving mercy, and walking humbly, without excuses or every resorting to preemptive judgments or selective exemptions.
When we abandon moral principles for the sake of outcomes we desire or divine loopholes, we replace mutual respect or an opportunity for understanding with a race to eliminate every perceived threat, leaving no room for peace, forgiveness, or humanity.
The measure we use—whether it is mercy or judgment—will be measured back to us, and no appeal to a higher purpose can absolve us of that final reckoning.
When we cut someone off it is a mistake, when they do it to us—we go ballistic.
Post script: Morality is staying in our lane and abiding by the rules. Playing God is running someone off the road for daring to cross into our lane. It is about our keeping the law—not our enforcing of it. And when we start to justify the abuse of others, as Biblical, then we turn into a violator. James 4:11 explains: “When you judge the law, you are not keeping it, but sitting in judgment on it.” The end result of exemption of ourselves using God’s plan as cover is a cycle of violence where all see themselves as righteous—even while doing incredible evil.
The Old Testament is full of things those of us born in the liberal West would find to be abhorrent. It was a wildy different culture. But, the one thing most foreign—in an age when we coddle our children to death—is parents literally killing children when they stepped too far out of line:
Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.
(Exodus 21:17 NIV)
Simple. Concrete.
Or shall we say, written in stone?
If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.
(Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NIV)
“Stoned,” in this context, doesn’t mean legalized marijuana.
But if you do like a little smoke:
If a priest’s daughter defiles herself by becoming a prostitute, she disgraces her father; she must be burned in the fire.
(Leviticus 21:9 NIV)
Honor killing, in the West, is associated with Islam. Yet, interestingly enough, not once is it mentioned in the Qu’ran. However, there are multiple references in the Bible starting with those that are quoted above. Children who disobeyed—or who otherwise brought shame to their parents—were to be put to death. This punishment was not a choice or an option. No, it was a “must be put to death” command to keep Israel pure. And no doubt this teaching in the Old Testament is part of what inspires the practice today and why honor killing continues to be part of traditional cultures in the world.
And this went goes beyond killing children for their rebellion or sexual sin.
There is also this account:
And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord: “If you give the Ammonites into my hands, whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the Lord’s, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering.
[The, oh no part, where he returns home and is greeted by his beloved daughter.]
After the two months, she returned to her father, and he did to her as he had vowed. And she was a virgin. From this comes the Israelite tradition that each year the young women of Israel go out for four days to commemorate the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite.
(Judges 11:30-31, 39-40 NIV)
Umm, what?!?
Some commentaries try to explain away the most plain reading about what happened to the daughter of Jephthah. But if his vow is that important to him and a cause for her to mourn for two months, why would it be any less than what he said he would do? This is a religious tradition where the big patriarch, Abraham, was ready to kill his own son as a way to please God—so their ‘Biblical’ values seem very different from ours.
Even in the New Testament we start where Joseph is contemplating the out-of-wedlock pregnancy of Mary—his betrothed—does he spare her by having her sent away quietly or does he tell the world about her dishonoring him? What does an honorable man do? It is life or death. In the Gospel of Matthew, where this account was given, four other dreams are recorded and all of them for the purpose of saving lives.
Joseph’s dream saved Mary’s life.
There is this clear expectation: Honor or death. Or maybe honor and death?
It is important to note that Old Testament laws are longer applied even in the Jewish context. The Western world has liberalized all. Sure, you might still get caught on the Coldplay camera and cancelled for adultery—pelted with stones (figuratively) in form of memes and social media roasting—but not killed. We still judge sexual sin. That said, we don’t use Capital punishment for that or really much of anything anymore.
The Triumph of Liberalism in the West
In modern Western culture, promiscuous daughters or rebellious sons rarely provoke shame; some parents even take pride in their children’s nonconformity. How did this transformation occur?
Not very long ago that Europeans were a rather rowdy bunch—burning heretics and pillaging the world. They defended slavery as compassionate and Biblically endorsed. Cousin marriage was common and beating your wife not a big deal. This was ‘Christian’ civilization.
But, starting in the Enlightenment, human rights slowly expanded and eventually were extended to women and racial minorities. Individual liberty, religious rights, primacy of reason and scientific progress started with this movement in the West.
It took a few centuries for Enlightenment ideals to take hold—but the American colonies became a breeding ground for this new thinking and a liberal revolution. The French would follow suit and liberalism eventually swept through all of Western Europe.
This liberalism wasn’t always sunshine and roses. Napoleon had marched across the European continent at the same time as the Americans were manifesting their destiny all the way to the Philippines. Proclaiming “liberty and justice for all” while trampling the indigenous people underfoot. And yet, long-term, it has led to the assumptions we don’t even question in the West.
Even our most traditional religious types, who decry feminism, oppose the sexual revolution and vigorously defend their own entitled status as men, do an about-face when it comes to those getting ‘Biblical’ against sexual immorality according to the texts. I mean, I guess that is just the nature of sectarianism (Okay when we do it, but a dangerous extreme if they do the same or take it an extra step), but it also shows how deeply entrenched liberalism has become in the West—it shapes our perspectives.
Still, the hiccups (or hypocrisy) continues. The rights of the visible always trumping that of the fetus or foreigner.
Christianity has certainly played a role, but has tended to follow the cultural zeitgeist with adherents applying their faith on both sides of the popular argument. One could appeal to all being one in Christ or to some being excluded as the cotton pickin’ son’s of Ham. When the Bible has rules for slaves and masters, details genocidal campaigns at the command of God, and treats women as property of a man, a little confusion is to be expected. But Jesus definitely did stand up against graceless application of law and the religion that formed up in his name was a force for significant changes throughout the Roman empire. It was a shift from the might makes right of ancient civilizations—despite this still being how morality plays out in the real world.
The Church has always played a role in the abuses, from the bloodsoaked Crusades, to the brutal Inquisition and the current Zionist justification of slaughter in Gaza.
The West leads the body count in the modern world—the US following leading the West’s colonial mandate of killing a way to hegemony. This has become our biggest export. Our bombs and missionaries. Either they will convert to democratic values or die—as we replace the guy they elected with our dictator.
Evangeli-cons may claim an “age of grace” for themselves or their own family, but they also support the most brutal policies. If we are not directly involved in the violence, we’ll rabidly endorse those to whom all the “dirty work” is outsourced to. It’s amazing we will find the time to report an honor killing—by a person from a rival culture—and yet justify bombings and mass starvation of millions without second thought. Talk about strain on gnats and swallowing camels!
The Western world seriously needs to work on its own hypocrisy before lecturing the world (or adherents of other religions) on the immorality of their ways. Kids in Gaza get the death penalty every day, via means we provide, and yet we say it is justified—let the civilization that is without sin cast the first stone!
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.
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.
In the aftermath of the Israeli sneak attack on Iran, this being only the lastest of many provocations, some of my friends defended this move as necessity for the protection of Christian civilization. I mean, after all, there are crowds that chant “death to Israel” and “death to America” and couldn’t possibly be talking about the foreign policies or political regimes, right? It’s not like we dream about draining the swamp ourselves, is it?
But of the outrages of the Iranian response to yet another act of aggression—a missile landing near a hospital had the Zionist state going full propaganda mode. They called it deliberate, criminal, barbaric and gave this as the reason why there needs to be regime change in Tehran. The only thing is, only a day or so earlier the IDF had struck several Iranian hospitals and they have continued to do so even while calling it uncivilized for their enemy to do the same in response.
Did Iran target a hospital? Take a look at this picture and tell me what you see.
The American ‘Christian’ public is bigoted and easily bamboozled. They couldn’t tell you the difference between a Persian or an Arab—yet will tell you with total confidence that Iran has it coming while totally ignoring all of the atrocious acts of their own side in this conflict. When Israel began their Gaza campaign and deliberately struck a hospital, they justified it by claiming that there was a Hamas tunnel under it. The claim was not independently verified. Since then 31 of the 36 health care facilities in this occupied and besieged Palestinian territory have been severely damaged or destroyed.
There has been no accountability for what Israel does. The indiscriminate campaign in Gaza has potentially taken hundreds of thousands of lives, the vast majority of the casualties civilians and children given that Hamas represents only a fraction of Gaza’s population. Only 7% voted for them to rule. There is absolutely no justification for what is a campaign of collective punishment and annihilation of a native people. And this did not all start October 7th—the daring and deadly incursion currently being used as an excuse for the brutal destruction that has taken place since then—it has been the pattern for decades.
The question that one must ask is this: What is so civilized about bombing children in tents?
What is Christian about starving them to death?
This is all by design — not an accident.
This one-way outrage and pretending to have the moral upper hand while doing the same or worse is a feature of the Zionist doublethink.
Israel can take boys and then detain them indefinitely for merely throwing rocks at the occupation’s military vehicles—even rape or mistreat them—but Hamas is evil for taking captives mostly as a means of bargaining to get their own people back?
Zionists cloak themselves as the defenders of democracy while using hate speech law to crush those who dissent to the collective punishment of whole populations.
They claim that Islam is barbaric, both cruel to women and intrinsically violent, but then ignore the millions of innocents that they’ve starved, delimbed or incinerated—building their fake Zion on the pile of corpses.
Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. On the contrary: “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
Suddenly the surprise attack has become cool again. When Hamas launched their incursion, on October 7th of 2023, to take hostages to exchange for Palestinians who were taken by Israel, this was portrayed as proof of their derangement. This was used as an excuse for a brutal air campaign that has turned Gaza into rubble. To this today dozens are being slaughtered, while the rest of the population of over a million souls is subjected to a starvation death. But we’re told even the babies burned head to toe are acceptable collateral damage—Israel has a right to defend itself, right?
The sucker punching lion, Israel, decided to end Trump’s nuclear talks early with what is called a preemptive strike. Netanyahu has been warning, for decades now, that Iran is just two years from a nuclear bomb. Much to his dismay, however, the US population—having been fooled once by his talk of Iraq being an imminent threat—is war weary and was not ready to make a move. So like old Thanos finally saying, “Fine, I’ll do it myself,” and executing his plan to destroy half of the life in the universe, Netanyahu gambled and surprise attacked, Pearl Harbor style, while peace attacks were ongoing and Iran was making major concessions.
Much like the Six-day War, when Israel went on an offensive before a war even started, it is the modus operandi of the IDF to hit first, to simply declare neighboring people to be an imminent threat and then attack. There is no other country in the world permitted to do this. Only Israel can and then, when they draw reprisals, portray themselves as being a victim. This notion that Iran should just surrender it’s sovereignty to Netanyahu or the US is incomprehensibly absurd. I hope this is just part of the “big ask” strategy of Trump before a deal, but all bets are off at this point where this goes.
However, Iran is not an open air prison with only small arms and home-made rockets—if the IDF hoped to send them into complete disarray with this blitzkrieg, then they failed miserably. Yes, Iran is back on its heels, yet even while being struck while having guard lowered by treachery, effectively blinded by a vicious rabbit punch, they will managed to land an effective counterpunch. The bully, accustomed to ‘winning’ against opponents that were virtually fish in a barrel, made a huge miscalculation. Israel can bleed, with parts of Tel Aviv looking like they belong in Gaza, and it ends the illusion of invincibility that has cowed other nations in the region into compliance.
Half of the power Israel has in the Middle-East and the US in the world is a notion of legitimacy, that they can’t be beat, and this is now compromised. How did Israel know where to find the leading nuclear scientists of Iran? Well, the Iranians, had been fully cooperating with the IAEA and thus by this had given the location of these men. It is treachery that won’t soon be forgotten. The US and Israel are losing their credibility on multiple fronts. Decades of reputation are being erased with each broken promise and every thunderous hypersonic impact. Even if Iran is hit with a nuke or the US hangs on to global control for another decade, there is writing of our end on the wall.
Writing on the Wall
Unlike past elective wars where Russia and China remained on the sidelines, both of these countries are signalling that they will not put up with it. In recent days two Chinese surveillance ships have arrived in the region, massive cargo planes also landing in Tehran, and Putin (while chiding the leadership in Iran) for not taking his offer of a more advanced air defense, won’t hesitate to get some payback against the imperial West. It only gets worse if the US, were to employ some tactical nukes in trying to destroy bunkers. It would only open that Pandora’s box in Ukraine. The best option would be stepping back from the brink to save face and move on. Unfortunately this better end is unlikely to happen.
Netanyahu has been arrogant and he is now overextended, Trump betrayed negotiations entered in good faith and he will never be a trusted deal maker anymore. The fallout from Israel’s audacious preemptive strike on Iran, much like the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023, has reshaped the geopolitical landscape in ways that may prove irreversible. Netanyahu’s gamble, driven by a decades-long obsession with Iran’s nuclear program, has not only failed to deliver the decisive blow he envisioned but has also exposed the fragility of Israel’s perceived invincibility. The counterpunch from Iran, though delivered under duress, has left Tel Aviv scarred and the myth of an untouchable Israel in tatters. This was no mere military miscalculation—it was a strategic blunder that has eroded the legitimacy Israel and its ally, the United States, have long relied upon.
The treachery of exploiting Iran’s cooperation with the IAEA to target its nuclear scientists has shattered trust in international negotiations. Iran, far from the disarmed prisoner Gaza has become, proved resilient, landing blows that revealed Israel’s vulnerability. This betrayal, coupled with the U.S.’s complicity in undermining Trump’s own peace talks, has tarnished America’s reputation as a global mediator. Trump’s “big ask” strategy, if that was the intent, has backfired spectacularly, leaving him sidelined as a dealmaker and the U.S. further isolated on the world stage.
“This is the inscription that was written: mene, mene, tekel, parsin “Here is what these words mean: Mene : God has numbered the days of your reign and brought it to an end. Tekel : You have been weighed on the scales and found wanting. Peres : Your kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians.”
(Daniel 5:25-28 NIV)
The broader consequences are dire. Israel’s modus operandi—preemptive strikes justified by vague claims of imminent threats—has long been tolerated by the West, but the world is growing weary of this exceptionalism. The rubble of Gaza, the starvation of its people, and now the reckless escalation with Iran have stripped away the moral veneer Israel once claimed. Each hypersonic missile and broken promise chips away at the credibility of both Israel and the U.S., hastening the decline of their influence. Even if tactical victories are won, the writing is on the wall: arrogance and betrayal have set the stage for a new era where their dominance is no longer assured. The question now is not whether this decline can be stopped, but how swiftly it will unfold and what new powers will rise in its wake.
There is this sort of silly thought I have had, which has some legs, about the true nature of the universe and how unlikely it seemed that our friend’s daughter would fall victim to the currents of the Susquehanna river. I realize this is more just a hiccup of my own mind than an actual reality, but what are the chances? What are the actual probabilities we would know another Filipino-American couple with so many similarities and has a tragedy like this happen?
I ran my hunch through Grok. What are the chances that another couple, one of them a German-American with neck or back issues (like me) the other a recent immigrant from the Philippines who came with a child and has also (like my wife) recently given birth to a second child, losing their ten-year-old daughter in a drowning incident just a week prior to Mother’s Day? And how likely is it that I would have experienced the loss of a close friend’s child twice? The probabilities are so infinitesimal that the very existence of life is more likely than this:
The probabilities of the specific scenarios you described—knowing an ethnic German man in Pennsylvania with a Filipino wife and children matching your family’s profile (0.00462%), his 10-year-old daughter drowning in the Susquehanna River on a specific weekend (1 in 2.82 trillion), and being friends with two women who lost children tragically (0.566%)—are all significantly lower than the probability of life existing in the universe, which is nearly certain (1) due to the vast number of planets (10²²). Even in an extreme pessimistic scenario where life is exceedingly rare (0.36%), only the third scenario approaches or slightly exceeds it, while the others remain far less likely. The universe’s immense scale makes life’s existence highly probable, whereas the hyper-specific nature of your scenarios, especially the drowning event, drives their probabilities to near-zero.
All this is just an extended version of that age-old question: “Why me?”
This weird feeling of this being a tragedy too perfectly scripted to be real is simply the hallucination of a mind searching for meaning where there is none.
It is no different from when I—in delusion of religion and looking for answers—had assigned meaning to the ‘impossibility’ (a romantic interest) randomly picking up a paper, leftover from Sunday school class in the same location, and then reading from it “with God all things are possible” right as she walked past me—renewing my hope to continue my foolish pursuit of faith and love. Belief in a divine plan only led to more disappointment. It is what it is—as she told me as an answer. A coincidence is no more meaningful than we have made it.
apophenia
Truly, we could throw our lasso around any circumstance, any set of facts, and find it to be highly improbable. But, after the fact, if it has happened, the probability is always 100%. Basically everything is unlikely right before it has happened and this why those Lee Strobel type of apologetic ‘cases’ aren’t very compelling for a critical thinker. They are too based on assumptions and deciding what matters based on our own window of understanding—never considering the other possibilities.
It is actually very likely that I know another Filipino-American couple, involving a single mother and a lonely guy similar to me, given that we deliberately connected to the local Pinoy community for sake of my wife. And it was our similarities that always gave us something to talk about. He was employed in an engineering related field, same as me, and going through the visa process. As far as the tragedy, around 4000 unintentionally drown in the US per year (900 children) and spring weather (near Mother’s Day) is just likely to bring people to the river.
My foreign-born friends, in retrospect, were more vulnerable. Those who grew up in the Susquehanna valley have a bit more fear of the river. The waters may appear to placid, but we also know about those floods which have ripped through communities and how it respects nobody. You’ll try to pet a bison up until you see the first person gored. We simply don’t know risk until we have seen it for ourselves. But then I also know that the mother, in this case, was always extremely cautious and only looked away for seconds before hearing the commotion.
What is so hard to accept is that reality that this world is full of danger. Both conspiracy theorists and left-wing control freaks refuse to deal straight up with a world where death can occur without some dark plot and that this won’t be solved with politics. I’ve never been under that delusion. However, I have had this good things happen to good people expectation going in to life. My Pollyannish hopes have been rebuffed too harshly and consistently to continue holding to them. In truth, the natural world does not care about your morality—if you follow all the rules or are evil incarnate—the universe is utterly indifferent. It just is what it is.
There is no evidence of a grand design, as I had been indoctrinated to believe, and fully embraced—before falling flat.
It is pareidolia, a mirage or projection of our own desire to find explanation or reason for everything. People want this singular thing to blame for all bad things and yet there is not in the case of this drowning. The mom was not negligent, the water is neutral and neither good nor evil. Trying to find design is only me choking on a reality we all should face: We all leave this world the same as we entered it—dust to dust. Some depart on a different schedule than expected. But many children have died before their parents and long before history recorded it.
To have no cosmic force orchestrating our suffering is a big comfort. It eliminates the cognitive dissonance of the loving God that then subjects Creation to torment. Pain is a survival mechanism. It helps to correct our behavior and train us, but also misfires (ask those with chronic pain) and hurts us for no good reason. There is no need for a perfect system, one where only those who deserve punishment are punished, merely one that functions well enough. There is no intent to be cruel, no special message to glean from the loss of a precious daughter a weekend before Mother’s Day—she slipped on a rock and that’s all there is to it.
We desire a director behind all events good or bad to make it easier to understand.
If fantasy helps you cope with grief then by all means embrace it. We could theorize it was part of a hidden divine plan to gain the salvation of her parents, a punishment for lack obedience to Allah, and that she is playing up in heaven with those millions of aborted fetuses Evangeli-cons care about (or the children of Gaza they don’t) and if the thought comforts then pull it up over your head like a warm blanket. Nature can be cruel, cruel in a way that seems very much too improbable to be unplanned, but good people suffer just as the wicked do, and the universe offers no explanation or apology for it.
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.
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.
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.
Irregular Ideation 