But it is also part of a general strategy of using Jewish people, as a whole, as a human shield for a supremacist ideology that many Jews entirely reject. And, furthermore, this conflating Jewish identity with the Zionist state is contributing to a rise in actual anti-Jewish sentiment around the world. It is very disturbing to see a vile ideology trying to avoid the rebuke that it most certainly deserves by wearing Jewish identity as a mask for what it truly is.
Zionism is just blood and soil nationalism using ancient history as a cover story no different than those who called themselves the third Rome.
Zionism is not the same thing as Judiasm and thus taking an anti-Zionist position is not hatred of Jews. Just like we can both be opposed to a political party and still not be unAmerican, we can oppose a Zionist state of Israel in favor of a country where all people of all faiths have the same rights—where indigenous people are not harassed or killed so settlers can steal their land. It is okay to hate a regime of rape, theft, murder and collective punishment. It is also okay to hold those accountable who perpetrate war crimes calling it defense.
What this conflating is is the Motte-and-bailey fallacy (also a strategy) where you pair a position that is defensible with one that is not. In other words, you say something like “Israel has a right to defend itself,” which everyone will generally agree with, and then use this statement to defend the IDF knowingly bombing children in Gaza. The two things are not the same. Defense and killing babies are two vastly different things. If a neighbor, from an apartment complex near me, assaulted me, and then I go burn down his whole building in response, nobody will accept that this is a defensive action—it is just murder.
This strategy of hiding Zionism behind the Jewish ethnicity and faith comes 100% at the expense of innocent Jews who have no connection to the modern state of Israel. Merging Jewish identity with Zionism and Zionist atrocities only serves to feed anti-Jewish sentiment. Decoupling the two words is separating a hostage from a hijacker and focuses our critique on the bad actors who falsely claim to speak for all Jews. The best way to protect from riding anti-Jewish sentiment is to hold Zionists to account rather than allow them to hide behind Jewish suffering.
Four Ways To Fight Anti-Semitism:
1) Apply opposition to anti-semitism to all Semitic people. The word Semite is derived from the language people use. Specifically Arabic, Hebrew, and Aramaic. The rights of all people, indigenous Muslim or Christian, as well as Jews, should be protected. It is anti-semitic to argue Palestinian lives and the lives of Arab neighbors, are worth less than that of European settlers. The Zionists have not only hijacked Judiasm and the land, but the word Semitic as well—we need the term to be returned to original use.
2) Make the Holy Lands a safe refuge for all good people again. All Abrahamic religions have significant ties to the territory where a modern state of Israel is formed. Christian and Muslim communities which existed for centuries are under threat by the invading settlers. The first Christians were Semites—Jewish coverts—so why are we privileging only one religious group on a land home to Christians and other Semitic people?
3) Stop protecting the bad people simply on the basis of religious identity. This applies just as much to any religion, but especially to a country that regularly shields evil people on the basis of their Jewish-ness and loyalty to the apartheid regime.
Jonathan Pollard, a US Citizen, who stole nuclear secrets and gave them to Israel (who, in turn, sold them to the Soviet Union), was a traitor to the degree that would be hanged for treason in times past. But he got life in prison and was released after thirty years due to the lobbying pressure of the Israeli government. He arrived in Israel, on the private jet of Sheldon Adelson (the late husband of the Trump mega-donor Miriam Adelson) to a hero’s welcome under “right to return.” In fact, Pollard was greeted by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu after kissing tarmac in Tel Aviv.
There are also similar stories of corrupt men fleeing to Israel from Ukraine. Pedophiles and rapists, of Jewish identity, are granted this same escape from justice by “right to return” and an Israeli policy of protecting all Jews regardless of if they are good or evil. This undermines the trust in Jewish people worldwide. It contributes to the othering of Jews and breeds resentment and contempt. Sure, two separate standards may be okay for a racial supremacist, but it is totally unacceptable for those who reject all identity politics and tribalism.
I would stand shoulder to shoulder with a good person who happens to be a Jew, Muslim or any other religion over a person who claims to be a Christian and yet does not love their neighbors. To me, those who confuse genetics with goodness or their own tribal identity with innocence are the problem. A truly good person cares about genuinely good character—and not skin color or religious costume.
Jews are safer when Zionists abusers are made accountable. The world is a better place when nobody puts tribe over a commitment to justice for all people. We don’t need the Holy Lands to be a haven for the world’s traitors, pedophiles and identity thieves.
3) Treat AIPAC as a foreign lobby and trim back the Zionist control over our political institutions. If Congress were taking the same amount of money from supporters of any other country in the world that they did from AIPAC they would be in jail. How is it not collusion? However, you’re not going to hear about this scandal on CBS News, after it was bought by Zionist billionaires, with a new editor-in-chief Bari Weiss. Nor will the truth be told on TikTok after it was scooped up by the same people—now moderated by a former IDF soldier searching for ‘antisemitic’ content which could be anything that tells the truth about Israel.
Frankly, the US desperately needs a policy of de-Zionization after years of our Middle-East mayhem. When we have US ambassadors to Israel, like Mike Huckabee, meeting with a man convicted of treason, and Presidents unable to act independently from a foreign regime—even when that foreign regime kills more children than it foes true combatants—drastic measures need to be taken. We can’t simply vote this out. When then the candidates for mayor of NYC show fealty to a foreign nation this goes beyond normal corruption. There truly needs to be more prosecutions for actual treason.
A Better Jewish Defense Strategy
The current Zionist strategy—the fusing Jewish identity with an apartheid regime, shielding war criminals and traitors behind the label “Jew,” and branding every critic an anti-Semite—has sadly produced the most dangerous environment for Jews in decades: surging street-level hatred, synagogue shootings, and a global resurgence of real anti-Jewish bigotry fueled by rage at Israel’s actions. The four steps above break that fuse.
When Judaism is decisively decoupled from Zionism, when “Semitic” again and protects Palestinians and Lebanese as fiercely as Israelis, when the Holy Land is a shared home rather than an ethnic fortress, and when Jewish criminals no longer enjoy impunity under “right of return” or AIPAC protection, the primary pretext for hating Jews evaporates. Jews become what most already are: Just ordinary citizens judged by their character, and not scapegoats for a supremacist project most never voted for.
Paradoxically, the safest future for Jewish people is not more tanks, walls, or lobbying billions—it is the complete dismantling of the ideological human shield that today places them in the line of fire.
If you create a vacuum you don’t always get to decide who fills it. Charlie Kirk was killed while speaking on a college tour to promote a brand of conservativism. Whether you do or do not believe the official narrative about who killed him and why, his death has left a void in the public square. Yes, certainly the Turning Point USA organization has grown as a result and buzz about “the next Charlie Kirk” started right after the assassination—even too soon. But there’s one winner and it is not on the list of approved candidates to be his heir.
The first time I heard the term “Groyperism” was from the mouth of Ben Shapiro. I’m not sure if this was before or after Shapiro and other ‘conservative’ Zio-bots had started to target Tucker Carlson for elimination or not, but it is really weird to see these so-called conservatives run a very coordinated smear campaign to silence critics of Israeli policy with charges of “white nationalism” or “neo-Nazi”—and sounding just like the woke left. What ever happened to the marketplace of ideas, debating bad ideas with better ideas, or carrying on the legacy of Charlie Kirk who would engage in discussion rather than try to deplatform those who disagree?
Whatever the case, Mark Levin and the rest of these Zionist mouthpieces come off as shrill and unhinged. What we’re seeing is a Streisand effect. The more they screech in their protest and try to brand with their labels, as the left does, the more people have begun to question. I have never had a reason to listen to Fuentes before. But much of what he says sounds perfectly reasonable and is at least not as bad as turning a blind eye to the bombing of babies. I mean, let’s just put things into perspective.
To be clear, they are not going after Tucker for his interview with a popular social media personality with an off-color Zoomer sense of humor. No, that’s just the excuse. They are going after him because he questioned Israel First policies and why we should go to war with Iran. They can’t assassinate him, that would be too obvious, but they can try to drive a wedge between him and GOP by claiming he’s gone over the edge. But it isn’t Tucker that’s the problem. He’s not at all neo-nazi or anti-semitic—he is just not one of those taking Bibi’s bribes.
Some of us simply notice the IDF bombing children and sodomizing prisoners and do not want our resources used for this. Some of us have noticed that Trump took millions from Miriam Adelson, a prominent Zionist, and that he is more focused on the national interests of Israel than he is our economic future. We’ve noticed how Charlie Kirk was under extreme pressure to censor certain voices, including Tucker, costing millions in contributions to his Turning Point USA, right before his public execution.
That Washington Post runs an article about the Republican’s “neo-Nazi problem” while not saying a word about Sen Lindsay Graham chortling “We’re killing all the right people, and we’re cutting your taxes.” This at the Republican Jewish Coalition Annual Leadership Summit. We have yet to see the media mouthpieces of the political regime condemn vile and disgusting Randy Fine, a Representative out of Florida, who advocates for the complete annihilation of two million people—kill every man, woman and child. But extremists are not a threat to the Republican party?
Christianity teaches to turn the other cheek and love your enemies, but the Talmud says the opposite, it says “If someone comes to kill you, kill them first.” And I’ve seen this teaching being applied to Zohran Mamdani, the mayor-elect of NYC, or that he be given this treatment—that he can be preemptively killed for not backing Israel! And then they wonder why many good people are backing away from the Zionist movement? They’re basically giving themselves a license to kill anyone who speaks against the violence they do—calling it defense.
The Real Debate: Debate or Kill
Yesterday I opened up Facebook and there was paid content from a group that is trying to cancel Ms. Rachel over her opposition to killing babies. They basically accused her of being in league with Hamas. A terrorist. The only proof that they offer is her alleged alignment with Motaz Azaiza, a Palestinian activist who is opposed to Hamas and the armed resistance in Gaza. For Zionists any level of disagreement is equivalent to being a Nazi and eventually a death sentence.
Ms. Rachel is Hamas?
The Levin side believes in things like blood guilt and collective punishment, that guilt is in a challengers DNA, whereas Tucker sees all individuals as redeemable (including the likes of Fuentes and Levin) and attempts to employ reason rather than violence as the means to further his ends. Levin can only cancel or kill. He sees himself as being a part of a superior race—a chosen people—which exempts him from needing to talk to the other side. To him anyone who would dare to disagree is less than an animal and shouldn’t be allowed to live. Tucker, on the other hand, literally invited Levin to join him on a far larger platform so they can discuss their differences.
Tucker represents the Christian worldview and articulates it well if given a chance to speak. Levin, by contrast, reminds me of a a man I sat next to on a flight from NYC. He was going to celebrate Passover in Israel, a very crude man (yet very intelligent) and he made for a very interesting conversation. I was immediately taken aback by his initial “I’m a racist” announcement and enjoyed telling him of my German heritage after, in the course of our conversation, he tells me he hates all Germans. It made me think of the difference in religious traditions. There is no “love your enemies” in Judiasm. You kill or conquer.
What Levin and other Zionists truly are is Jewish supremacists. They don’t see the people outside of their group as equals or even necessarily human. You’re like a dog. If you are obedient they’ll let you eat and if you are not they’ll put you down. You don’t have a discussion with lower lifeforms—you don’t need to answer to them or treat them as you would an equal. That’s why Levin is incapable of even understanding the Olive Branch offered to him by Carlson. To him it’s an insult. To him it is an affront to his position as superior.
The entire New Testament is basically an attack on Jewish supremacy. When Jesus highlights the faith of a Roman he’s hitting his audience where it hurts. He tells them point blank that they’re not the children of Abraham, that those who reject the Son do not have the Father and are children of their father the devil:
Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me. Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me!
(John 8:42-45 NIV)
Now even quoting this could get someone labeled as anti-Semetic. But Jesus is not talking about blood guilt or their ethnicity, he is confronting their rejection of Him and the Gospel of reconciliation he offered to all who believe. St Peter welcomed Gentiles into the church and even relaxed the rules of Jewish identity for converts. St Paul, like Jesus instructing to lend unto Caeser what is Caeser’s, legitimizes Roman authority as a minister of God:
Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
(Romans 13:1-7 NIV)
The Jews hated Roman authority and they rebelled against it. But St Paul legitimizes it saying that if they enforce a moral standard then it is good. This goes against right or wrong based on what tribe. Zionists cry if there own are harmed, make an appeal to morality, and yet celebrate when a prisoner is raped on camera by an IDF guard. They have two different standards. Sodomy is okay when it is against someone standing up to their domination. But why resistance to their rule makes you a terrorist. However, St Paul says even Pagans authorities need to be obeyed if they do good. This concept goes directly against those who saw their own as good no matter what they did.
Christianity welcomes all. It tells us “there is neither Jew nor Gentile” (Gal 3:28), and abandons divisive identity to embrace the example of Jesus Christ. Zionism is the exact opposite. It says those who are not part of their chosen race have no rights and can either choose servitude or death. When you make the same claim to rights they will kill you. Israel has just passed a law that it is okay to execute Palestinians—but Jews are completely exempted. And this is not an apartheid state? Really?!?
Two Versions of America First
Carlson and Fuentes, while lumped together by the Zio-bots, are two very different ideas of America First. Carlson is a classic liberal or coexist conservative. He believes in a US where “all men are created equal” and there is no superior or inferior race. Fuentes, is a bit more like an Uno Reverse card and does to them what they do to us.
Fuentes is part of the generation tired of being told white men are the problem and fighting fire of identity politics with the fire of his own brand. Carlson, in contrast, is attempting the Christian approach—applying Romans 12:20-21:
“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.
Whereas the Talmud advises the exact opposite—which is to eliminate perceived threats through preemptive violence—and the firebrand Fuentes answers the Jewish supremacists with his own parody version of them, the Christian response is more of a love bomb. While identity politics can’t overcome identity politics and those who live by the sword will also die by it, this third way option offers potential to break these cycles of tit-for-tat violence and escalation. Had Israel tried the same approach at any point on the past 77 years there may not have ever been a need for the two-state solution. And, while I don’t blame Fuentes for his reactionary identity politics, there is not much of a way forward in his approach.
This is a crisis point for Western civilization, we either allow ourselves to remain vassals of a Jewish supremacist regime, or we find an American identity that mirrors the same attitude of the Zionists, or we pursue a path of peace by putting the words of Jesus into practice. Yes, turnabout is fairplay—and the Fuentes types have as much right to defend themselves as Israel does. But the project of humanity isn’t served by this, we end up as divided warring factions trying to cancel or kill enough of the other side to win—and everyone ends up a loser. Or we act in faith and choose a path of empathy for all rather than selective love and multiple standards based on identity group.
This is what makes the attacks against the Tucker Carlson types so reprehensible. He is trying to talk to and find common ground with all parties in the conflict. The point is to build bridges not burn them. Fuentes, who has trashed Carlson in the past, was willing to sit down and talk. Levin, by contrast, tried to act as if Carlson (who has a social media following that absolutely dwarfs his own) is a weirdo and somehow trying to gain an audience by hosting him—a total inversion of the truth. There is this very clear pattern that every accusation made by the Zio-bots is a confession.
But I digress. Those who case about Israel should stop alienating the moderate voices that aren’t actually a threat to an Israel that is governed morally and doesn’t show clear partiality based on ethnicity or religion. The people who reject the reasonable voices—or accuse all who dare to question them “Nazis” or “anti-Semites”—they’re a threat to everything built in the time since the Old Testament. It is a regressive position, a return to tribalism, and decidedly anti-Christ.
Fool Me Once, Shame On You
We have a choice. We can choose not to see any of this, plug our ears and pretend Judeo-Christian is not an oxymoron—kiss the wall so to speak. Or we choose the way of Fuentes, fighting Jewish supremacy with our own tribal identity based loyalty and go down that eye for an eye path until we’re all blind. Or we take Tucker’s listen to all sides approach and show our loyalty only to the values of our Sovereign. There is no going back. Charlie Kirk is dead. The era that he represents is over. There can be no union of light and darkness, no yoking of believer and unbeliever, we choose Christ or we are fallen away from truth.
The mask has slipped completely from the faces of Mark Levin, Ben Shapiro, Randy Fine, and the loudest voices of the Zionist wing of American conservatism—revealing, in the stark words of Isaiah 5:20, those who “call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.” For decades this sleeper cell has cloaked themselves in the familiar language of constitutional liberty, and preached free speech absolutism, promoted so-called Judeo-Christian values—decrying campus cancel culture and leftist deplatforming as the death of the republic. Yet the moment a conservative dares question unconditional aid to Israel—the moment Tucker Carlson hosts a dissident voice—the very same men reach for the same weapons that they once swore to destroy: smears, leaks, boycotts, and ritual excommunication.
Mark Levin, who spent years positioning himself as the fiercest defender of open discourse against Big Tech censorship, now leaks private text messages calling Tucker Carlson a “little bastard” and “modern-day David Duke,” then storms his radio show in November 2025 to declare that anyone who interviews Nick Fuentes has “no place in the conservative movement”—this a purity test delivered with all the sanctimonious fury of a 2019 Berkeley sophomore demanding a speaker be banned. The constitutional scholar who once thundered his version of “the answer to bad speech is more speech” now insists the answer to speech that he dislikes is coordinated ostracism.
Ben Shapiro, the man who built an empire mocking trigger warnings and safe spaces, devotes an entire week of shows in November 2025 to branding Carlson an “intellectual coward” and “Nazi normalizer,” tweeting “No to cowards like Tucker Carlson who normalize their trash,” and urging the right to treat him as radioactive. The same Shapiro who once said “facts don’t care about your feelings” now deals exclusively in guilt-by-association and emotional blackmail, demanding that conservatives choose between loyalty to America First and loyalty to a foreign government’s PR narrative—no debate, no nuance, just shunning.
Randy Fine, the Florida legislator lionized by the GOP establishment, goes further still: in early November he labels Carlson “the most dangerous man in America” and “leader of a modern-day Hitler Youth,” not for violence or lawbreaking, but for the crime of hosting an interview Fine dislikes. This from a man whose own rhetoric in his speeches and on social media has included celebrating the starvation of Gaza civilians and declaring that even Palestinian children are terrorists for being born Palestinian.
The mask is not slipping here; it has been hurled to the ground and stomped on.This is the great revelation of 2025: the loudest “anti-cancel culture warriors” on the right were never opposed to cancel culture itself—only to cancel culture directed at them. When the target is a paleoconservative, a Christian nationalist, or simply an America-First voice that refuses to put Tel Aviv’s interests above Washington’s, the old tools of the far left—deplatforming, blacklisting, public shaming—are suddenly presented as holy instruments of righteousness.
Why this incredible reversal?
It’s truly not a reversal.
It is a revelation.
What we are witnessing is not hypocrisy in the ordinary sense. No, they are wolves in sheep’s skin and this is the final exposure of an Israel-First worldview that is truly in total opposition to conservative in the American grain. Christian conservatism—rooted in the universalism of the Gospel and the natural rights tradition of the Founders, along with a deep suspicion of foreign entanglements—has always held that sin is sin, that mercy is extended even to enemies, and that no man and no nation stands above judgment. The mask that has fallen reveals something older, something tribal: a politics of blood and soil transplanted from the Levant, only dressed for decades in borrowed Reaganite clothing.
The choice cannot be clearer. We cannot remain neutral. We believe that everyone still breathing is redeemable, like the Apostle Paul, or we revert to belief in blood guilt—and that even babies can be branded as terrorists and brutally killed. We can believe that a Jew named Jesus is the seed of Abraham that saves the world or we side with those who say he was a false prophet boiling in feces. We believe in the kingdom that is built on supernatural love or one that which is a product of weapons of war and fights (in various forms of disguise) for the destruction of every Christian value we claim to hold dear.
This is what Zionists celebrate.
It may only be a coincidence that Charlie Kirk was killed shortly after enraging his Israel First donors by refusing to disassociate with Tucker Carlson and Candice Owens. Maybe it did not matter to them that he felt a need to abandon the pro-Israel cause? But I know Kirk wouldn’t join these Zio-bot zealots in their campaign to cancel Carlson for talking to everyone.
A religious fundamentalist might see Nietzsche’s “Madman” parable as an attack on faith. The German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche’s mental decline and tragic end could seem like an obvious consequence. His bold claim that “God is dead” would naturally lead to madness, wouldn’t it?
Recently, I came across the story of Ruth Miller, an Amish woman whose religious convictions led to an unthinkable act. In a state of spiritual delusion, she drove her 4-year-old son, Vincen, to a lake and “gave him to God” by throwing him into the water resulting in his drowning. This awful tragedy following immediately after the accidental drowning of her husband Marcus during a failed attempt to swim to a sandbar in an effort to prove his faith.
Both belief in God or disbelief really does not make a difference as far as our mental health. We can attribute beliefs to actions, like the divisive assumption—of black and white thinkers—that Decarlos Brown Jr. was motivated by racial animus. Or realize that our human psyche is capable of dangerous misfires no matter our skin color category or ideological affiliation. Black, Amish or Atheist, all can have psychological breaks from reality originating from family history or environmental factors.
In the case of Nietzsche, who suffered from a breakdown at the age of 44—while seeing a horse being flogged—the theories of why he declined range from neurosyphilis to the possibility of frontotemporal dementia and a brain tumor. It could be a combination of factors, and maybe the very thing that made him brilliant also part of his downfall?
Nietzsche had a busy and relentless mind, his “will to power” philosophy itself perhaps a way to cope with a world that didn’t align with what his cultural heritage told him. He had to take things to their ends, he was not content with the answers he was given and this tendency of his mind being rooted deep in the composition of his brain—progressive disease and circumstances finally pushing him over the edge into insanity?
Likewise, the Amish mother, a pious woman by appearances, didn’t process her religious teachings the same as others in her church and tradition. For better or for worse, most claim to take the Bible literally would never attempt to do the things that they’ve read in the book. In a modern context a parent who is willing to sacrifice a child to God is rightly considered mad. But for Abraham it was a proof of his righteousness:
By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had embraced the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, even though God had said to him, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” Abraham reasoned that God could even raise the dead, and so in a manner of speaking he did receive Isaac back from death.
(Hebrews 11:17-19 NIV)
That’s one way to explain away an irrational act of Abraham tying up his child, and then putting him pyre to be a sacrifice to God. It is just plain madness otherwise. Is it really any wonder a delusional mind would follow this pattern in the Holy texts? I mean, truly, the crazier part is how we can read through this in Sunday school class without being a bit disturbed. Only when someone starts to act in this kind of ‘faith’ does anyone notice it is completely unacceptable.
Faith or lunacy?
But then we’re all mad. Half of us claim it is okay to dismember a living human being in the womb because their existence is a big inconvenience for an adult woman. While the other half thinks it is okay dismember a living human being in Gaza because of what Hamas did a couple of years ago. All seem willing to sacrifice little children in the ‘right’ circumstances. We’ll praise those who end the life of the innocent when this aligns with an imagined ideal outcome or future. We’ll all say the other is irrational and evil while justifying our own violence.
But, I digress, we should not blame the blackness of Decarlos Brown Jr. for his evil deed any more than the Amishness of Ruth Miller for what she did. The idea that we should not change our standards based on race should come with the general non-judgment based on race. Mental illness is mental illness, unbound by category. To judge actions without prejudice—based on race, faith, or even agnostic philosophy—requires us to comprehend the universal fragility of the human mind and our own susceptibility to delusion.
The quote in title, an unintentionally honest comment from a pious young woman, will continue to ring in my ears for decades to come. Scripture describes the word of God being “sharper than any two-edged sword,” but her romantic rejection came more like a hammer blow to my Mennonite worldview where spiritual was supposed to outweigh physical gain. I had patterned my life, up to that point, around a sort of practicality over flash and suddenly realized what I thought was an asset was actually liability.
I was reminded of these words again as my wife’s glowing approval of the monstrosity in my driveway, a Ford Explorer ST, still feels out of place for me. I mean, granted, I was not keen on transitioning to family life with a pedestrian option like a minivan or boring SUV. But I didn’t expect my always frugal—cost conscious—female counterpart to go along with it 100%. She was supposed to pump the brakes and did not. I’ve realized, in this, that every woman is happy with the nice things and won’t say no if you provide it for them. We’ve both agreed to blame the baby for our reckless financial decision.
So, back to Milton, a place I’ve since moved on from and to the higher cost town across the river. Up until the words from the mouth of this wholesome girl, I had thought having a little house completely paid off would be worth something—even attractive. After all she claimed to be interested in missionary service and what better place to get a start, right? From what I had believed, there are needs anywhere there are people and where better to start than a deteriorating industrial town? Milton is an example of the rust belt, a place of declining opportunities and costs of outsourcing production.
The phrase “you’re thirty years old living in Milton” was simply accurate conveyance of her underlying priorities. There’s always the difference between what we say we are and the actual truth. Even in the secular culture there’s a romanticization of the love of two impoverished people who stand together in desperate circumstances. And those raised in an environment where Christian mission is supposed to be first, living as one poor as a church mouse amongst common people would seem the ideal.
But it is not. No, this young woman, like the one who had rejected me for not pursuing a title of “missionary” or “pastor” years prior, was clearly after status. They will not say it outright, probably are not even aware, but it is a kind of glamour they seek in service. A call to some exotic location to impress their religious peers. Sure, a Bentley may not be status in a conservative Anabaptist church, but the ability to jet around the world (often on someone else’s dime) is thrilling where it is considered sacrifice. It is currency, a way to gain status in a community of faith or be seen as righteous.
Resources are showered on the ministry or mission. Sure, it comes with stress, my 9-5 does as well, but the payoff is proportional. And not talking about “treasures in heaven” or God’s favor. A pastor has access to the community resources. It is social power as much as it is a position of responsibility and there are always those who want to curry a little favor. Again, it also comes with more scrutiny as well, but most tend to minimize the costs when they set off in a particular direction. Besides that, for the Mennonite woman, this is for the broad shoulders of her husband to bear, right?
The high expectations of my wife have been a little surprising to me. To her credit, she has been putting up with a partly finished remodel of old house since marrying and moving in. But yet, despite coming from the Philippines, her standards are now close to that of an American woman. We comment about our son’s demands for what the other kids have, but often fail the test ourselves. I mean, is it at all coincidence that I decide to finally pull the trigger on a new vehicle after a Mennonite workmate showed up with his new truck? Probably not.
And that’s the bottom line here. We are all after power in different forms. Be it money, be it land, access to resources or just status in our peer group. What I’ve found is that a religiously trained (or ‘spiritual’) person is no different. No, all they do is give a righteous cover to their personal ambition. They live in a delusion. Materialism is bad, they will say, but they are fine with your donation of money so they can buy a bigger missionary compound in Southeast Asia. And, under the fluff of my own pursuit of love was the same sexual motivation of all men.
I hated when a physiatrist summarized my obsession with the impossibility as being a “sexual attraction” and dismissed it initially as a woman who knew nothing of my heart as a man of God. But now I realized this is undoubtedly the correct assessment. Men want sexually attractive women and women want high status men. This is an essential part of our nature—a matter of survival for our genes—a young healthy woman is able to bear children and a wealthy or connected man can give them much more than a thirty year old living in Milton.
I’ve moved on from Milton, but cannot move on from the reality I have encountered head on, we’re sexual creatures living in material reality and can’t escape this by denial. I had been better to learn this decades ago rather than cling to a naive notion of love where it ends like a storybook. But I am now living the best life available to me and hope that my wife is happy with her decision. She’s won my heart asking for the “simple and happy life” and now I want to give her that and everything else wonderful this world offers. The best thing we gained was the child born almost a year ago now…
It’s never too late to live the life that you should—which is more about perspective than what you possess—even if you were denied love for being thirty years old and living in Milton.
A month or two ago a family member sent me a video of Steven Crowder going on the attack against an Orthodox Christian nun in Palestine. Mother Agapia Stephanopoulos was hosted by Tucker Carlson and talked to him about the violence against indigenous Christians in the occupied West Bank. And very soon after this interview, Crowder, who supposedly represents conservative values, went on the offensive claiming to “debunk” a faithful woman who has dedicated her life to what is remaining of Christian legacy in the Holy Lands.
Crowder, an Evangeli-con social media grifter, being so totally vicious about this woman’s physical appearance in his opening salvo made me wonder about his motives. What is it to him that she was sharing her experience? So I followed the money and found the reason. Crowder has a few notable sponsors, one of them called “Express VPN” and if you dig a little deeper this originates from a developer that goes by Kape Technologies.
Who owns that?
A guy named Teddy Sagi—an Israeli billionaire with an unscrupulous record.
So one has to wonder, is the sponsorship about selling the service or is it a way to buy influence? A bit of both, perhaps?
Temu Charlie Kirk
Either way, Crowder is getting paid to represent a certain perspective and likely got a memo: “We need you to do a hit job on that Orthodox nun, this is your list of talking points about her from our guys in intelligence. We will talk more about our ad budget for next year if you can get 100k clicks.” That’s my own crude caricature, but we know that Sagi is getting something in return for his investment and a VPN makes a nice front company to pay for propaganda. They also make a nice way to access your personal data—a specialty of Israeli-sourced ‘security’ software.
Here’s a brief overview by Grok:
Kape Technologies, a UK-based cybersecurity conglomerate specializing in privacy tools like VPNs, was originally founded in 2011 as Crossrider, a company notorious for developing ad injection software that was frequently bundled with malware, enabling intrusive tracking and data harvesting on users’ devices—a practice that continued plaguing the web as late as 2019. Rebranded to Kape in 2018 amid efforts to pivot toward “ethical” digital security, it aggressively acquired major VPN providers to dominate the market: CyberGhost in 2017 for $10.4 million, Private Internet Access (PIA) in 2019 for $95 million, ZenMate, and notably ExpressVPN in 2021 for $936 million, now controlling about 40% of the top VPN services alongside affiliate review sites that suspiciously rank its own products highest. The company is fully owned by Unikmind Holdings, a shell entity controlled by Israeli billionaire Teddy Sagi—a convicted fraudster from a 1990s insider trading scandal, Playtech gambling software founder, and major donor to the Israeli Defense Forces—who bought out remaining shares in 2024, privatizing Kape and reducing transparency by delisting it from the London Stock Exchange, followed by layoffs of around 180 employees (12% of staff) in early 2025 amid whispers of restructuring. This history raises serious potential risks for users seeking true privacy: from backdoors or data-sharing compelled by Israeli intelligence ties (Sagi and co-founder Koby Menachemi hail from elite Unit 8200 spy unit, echoing Pegasus spyware scandals), to conflicts of interest where “privacy” tools could flip to surveillance, especially given Kape’s opaque operations and the irony of a former malware peddler now gatekeeping global internet anonymity.
Things are not what they appear. Look up Pegasus and Paragon. If it says security it is probably about backdoor access to your personal information. But, of course, you’re supposed to be afraid of Chinese ownership of TikTok. Anyhow, as the expression goes—every accusation is a confession. If they say it is about your security it is really only about their ability to maintain control over the flow of information and to manufacture consent for their policies. The fox is now guarding the henhouse.
Weaponization of Social Media
After the assassination of Charlie Kirk there has been a full-court press to ‘weaponize’ social media on behalf of Israel. This isn’t my choice of words. This comes from the mouth of one foreign leader who is always allowed unusual access to US politics and that is Benjamin Netanyahu:
Social media is the most important weapon Israel has at its disposal. […] Now, if we can get those two things [TikTok under U.S. control and X access], we can get a lot, and I can go on about other things, but that’s not the point right now.
Oh, so remember that bipartisan campaign to ban TikTok, supposedly over the concern that the Chinese wanted to spy on our kids, which started right after Israel started their bombing of Gaza and killing of journalists? Well, the real reason for this should now be clear: Hasbara doesn’t work when those not already brainwashed and indoctrinated can see the truth in a thousand images. TikTok bypassed the censorship regime.
And let’s not pretend we do not know what that is. After Covid we all know how there was enormous pressure put on our social media platforms to protect the government narrative. Mark Zuckerberg recently went on Joe Rogan to tell how Facebook was forced to suppress truth, under the Biden administration, he likened the fact-check process to being “something out of 1984.” If you recall, people got banned for saying the virus may have originated in lab in China—when now this is being accepted a plausible theory of the origin.
The same people who would scoff at “China virus” being racist are okay “free Palestine” being labeled as anti-Semetic.
So when TikTok was forced into selling and has hired Erica Mindel, a former IDF soldier, to run their new “Public Policy Manager for Hate Speech” position—do you think she will be there as a neutral arbiter and ban the use of the word “terrorist” describe the children in Gaza? Not a chance. No, it is her job to censor information behalf of the site’s new owners, including the Zionist Trump-backer billionaire Larry Ellison, and their aim being anything on the platform that could hurt the Gaza real estate deal or can be interpreted as pro-Palestinian.
The War Against Free Speech
Why this full-court press? The US is Israel’s most vital resource and is exploited to the tune of billions annually in direct aid. And that’s just the start. Wars in Iraq and Syria, which did not benefit average Americans in any way shape or form, cost us trillions and that is not to mention the young men killed or broken for life—like those two rampaging Marine veterans over the weekend.
With their once reliable Boomer vein dying off and younger generations seeing through their propaganda. The Zionists, to fully tap into our human and industrial resources, must first strip away the resistance. This is not left to chance. No, they buy support of influencers. The dangle incentives in front of young rising stars online, bring them on a trip to Israel and the then will sponsor their content through shell companies. Once you are hooked on their money they own you, all you need to do is sprinkle in a little of their propaganda and the checks keep coming—and if you deviate too far from script?
US influencers partying it up, on a paid trip to Israel, while Palestinians die
Well, Charlie Kirk was doing a lot of talking about this before his untimely death:
I have less ability… to criticize the Israeli government than actual Israelis do. And that’s really, really weird. I’m terrified of stepping on a minefield here, trying to please both my owners [donors] and my audience.
(Charlie Kirk, The Megyn Kelly Show, Episode 832, August 6, 2025)
Yes, Kirk had been a stalwart Zionist, just as many in the Evangeli-con fundamentalist camp are, but recently had begun to openly express his doubts, questioning the October 7th narrative and suggesting that there was a stand down order given that had allowed to happen, and he even started to platform conservatives who see Gaza as a genocide or don’t want our tax dollars used to bomb babies. Kirk was loudly opposed to Trump getting involved in Netanyahu’s war against Iran. And was called on the carpet—by his billionaire owners—for his defiant show of independence.
The Unforgivable Disloyalty
Trump and Kirk have the same billionaires bankrolling them. Miriam Adelson, born in Mandatory Palestine and widow of casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, gave the Trump campaign $100 million dollars. This might be why he is backing up her Maccabee Task Force (MTF) in his crackdown on speech on college campuses. Her MTF doesn’t just counter the criticism of Israel—it obliterates it, slandering pro-Palestinian students and faculty as “Hamas supporters” or as being “Jew haters.” It is basically cancel culture on steroids.
A billionaire’s club.
With $100 million in lobbying muscle, MTF deploys doxxing campaigns, and pressures universities to discipline activists, pushes “(re)educational” programs that whitewash Israel’s actions. At Columbia U, Adelson’s MTF helped fuel Trump’s calls to deport student protesters like Mahmoud Khalil. This is not advocacy. No, it us a speech cartel, ensuring that no Gaza encampment or divestment call will threaten the billions funneled to Israel’s war machine. Adelson’s checks don’t just buy Trump’s loyalty—they buy campus silence, turning campuses into censored zones where dissent is punished and truth is the enemy.
Trump marketed MAGA to those weary of war, proclaiming America First as his motto—absolute opposition to foreign aid and DEI favoritism. But, like the scene from George Orwell’s Animal Farm, when the ruling pigs change the egalitarian commandment “All animals are equal” (adding to it “but some animals are more equal than others.”) we’ve found there is always one exception to this and that is on behalf of those who paid for his campaign. With President Trump it is America First—Israel Firster.
Trump’s betrayal goes beyond this directed attack on free speech. It’s also about family gain. Enter Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and Middle East “peace” envoy, who had brokered the Abraham Accords, not as a genuine diplomatic win, but as a sweetheart real estate deal for his own firm. Kushner’s Affinity Partners hedge fund scooped up $2 billion from the Saudi sovereign wealth fund mere months after leaving the White House—blood money that was funneled through UAE backchannels, with zero U.S. oversight. And let’s not forget his now infamous Gaza proposal: turning the rubble-strewn devastated Strip into a “waterfront property” paradise for wealthy Gulf investors, complete with luxury condos atop the mass graves. It’s not policy; it’s a flip: Kushner as the fixer—turning Palestinian suffering into billionaire beachfront.
And none of this is good for the American people who are already footing the bill for the demolition of Gaza.
Property of Israel—Till Death?
Once one truly understands the extent of the influence of this foreign lobby, and how much it has cost us in terms of cash, lives and reputation in the world, there is never a return to politics as usual. Trump has not ended cancel culture, foreign aid, forever war or drained the swamp. No, AIPAC and a slew of billionaires tied to Israel are calling the shots, along with Netanyahu, and—while they plan the next big war on behalf of a few elites and Israel—the shelves are bare for wounded warriors of the last one.
Charlie Kirk, like his friend Candice Owens, like Tucker Carlson, and Elon Musk, seemed to have increasing awareness of this sordid reality—where we got the same policies no matter who we voted for. Unfortunately he was never given the chance to put together everything that is laid out above. Whether he was killed by a crazed trans leftist or the same big money that made Turning Point a political force on a national level we’ll likely never know, but we do know that he wasn’t just some paid shill reading off a script.
Apparently the desperate Zionist regime is now paying American influencers $7000 for every post the make to help hide the crimes of Gaza. And the deeper you dig the more disturbing it gets. They fear-monger about TikTok somehow being a platform for CCP spying and then hand it over to the control of a foreign country with one scandal after another involving surveillance of unwitting users of their software. This is affront to MAGA and the American values that those on the right-wing claimed to defend during the Covid shutdowns—we must not let the powerful monopolize the conversation.
This is free speech and should not be punished.
The war on free speech—whether through Crowder’s bought-and-paid-for smears, Adelson’s campus crackdowns, or TikTok’s censorship under Ellison’s ex-IDF enforcers—is a desperate bid to shield a grotesque truth: Trump and Kushner’s betrayal of MAGA’s anti-war ethos for a Gaza land grab, funded by Adelson’s millions and Saudi blood money, turns Palestinian suffering into profit. But Gen Z’s unfiltered posts and campus rebellions are cracking the Hasbara facade, exposing the bombs, the condos, and the lies. Reject their tech fronts, defy their censors, and amplify the raw truth—on social media, in the streets, everywhere. America’s soul isn’t for sale; reclaim our Constitutional birthright by speaking out, or let the billionaires’ war on dissent silence us all.
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!
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 for lack of evidence) 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.
This level of consensus is chilling, arguably surpassing the public support for such policies in Nazi Germany between 1933 and 1945. The roots of this sentiment can be traced to the founding of Israel itself, where Zionist militias employed tactics of rape, murder, and terrorism to expel Palestinians from land they had inhabited for centuries. This violent dispossession undermines any claim to respect for property rights—a principle often championed by those who defend Israel’s actions.
The hypocrisy is particularly stark among American conservatives, who in one breath decry property taxes and champion the sanctity of life—down to the frozen embryo—yet in the next, justify the deaths of Palestinian women and children as “deserved” because 2% of Gaza’s men resisted occupation. This contradiction mirrors the selective outrage of a nation founded on the cry of “no taxation without representation,” yet which now supports a cruel occupying colonial power denying Palestinians self-determination and basic human rights.
The erasure of Palestinian identity is a key tool in this moral failure, with many Zionists claiming Palestinians “never existed” despite historical evidence to the contrary. Palestine is referenced as far back as Shakespeare’s Othello (1603): “I know a lady in Venice would have walked barefoot to Palestine for a touch of his nether lip.” Early Zionist cookbooks, from the 1920s (to teach European settlers how to use local spices and oils unfamiliar to them) have “Palestine” in the title acknowledging the region’s distinct cultural heritage.
This ongoing effort to remove inhabitants echoes a biblical story of greed and injustice:
Some time later there was an incident involving a vineyard belonging to Naboth the Jezreelite. The vineyard was in Jezreel, close to the palace of Ahab king of Samaria. Ahab said to Naboth, ‘Let me have your vineyard to use for a vegetable garden, since it is close to my palace. In exchange I will give you a better vineyard or, if you prefer, I will pay you whatever it is worth.’ But Naboth replied, ‘The Lord forbid that I should give you the inheritance of my ancestors.’ So Ahab went home, sullen and angry because Naboth the Jezreelite had said, ‘I will not give you the inheritance of my ancestors.’ He lay on his bed sulking and refused to eat. His wife Jezebel came in and asked him, ‘Why are you so sullen? Why won’t you eat?’ He answered her, ‘Because I said to Naboth the Jezreelite, “Sell me your vineyard; or if you prefer, I will give you another vineyard in its place.” But he said, “I will not give you my vineyard.”’ Jezebel his wife said, ‘Is this how you act as king over Israel? Get up and eat! Cheer up. I’ll get you the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite.’ So she wrote letters in Ahab’s name, placed his seal on them, and sent them to the elders and nobles who lived in Naboth’s city with him. In those letters she wrote: ‘Proclaim a day of fasting and seat Naboth in a prominent place among the people. But seat two scoundrels opposite him and have them bring charges that he has cursed both God and the king. Then take him out and stone him to death.’
1 Kings 21:1-10 NIV
This evil plan succeeded, and Naboth was murdered for his land with the complicity of a manipulated mob. The parallels to modern times are striking: Palestinians are dehumanized as “wild,” “barbaric,” or “terrorists,” just as Naboth was falsely accused to justify his execution. In the West Bank unarmed Palestinians are being driven off their land—even a US citizen was recently beaten to death by settlers. Jezebel and Ahab eventually faced divine judgment, but not before their treachery destroyed an innocent man. Today’s leaders, spurred by similar greed and power, rely on a complicit public—modern “useful idiots”—to enable ethnic cleansing and cultural erasure.
Suspicion surrounds the events of October 7, 2023, when Hamas launched a devastating attack on Israel. Reports indicate that IDF guards were ordered to stand down from their normal patrols an hour before the incursion, despite Gaza being one of the most heavily surveilled regions in the world. This raises questions about whether the attack was truly a surprise. Historical parallels, like the shorting of airline stocks days before the September 11 attacks, suggest insider knowledge rather than direct orchestration. While there’s no concrete evidence that intelligence agencies planned the October 7 attack, circumstantial factors—such as the “dancing Israelis” linked to Mossad during 9/11—fuel speculation that Israel’s intelligence may have known of Hamas’s plans and allowed them to proceed. Unlike conspiracy theories that overcomplicate events, the simpler explanation is that the attack was permitted to serve as a pretext for escalating military action.
This pattern of exploiting crises is not new. The 9/11 attacks, carried out primarily by Saudi nationals, were used to justify the invasion of Iraq, despite no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the plot. The invasion served special interests seeking to eliminate a regional rival, much as Israel’s current actions align with the Likud party’s long-standing goal of a “final solution” for Palestinian territories. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who had covertly supported Hamas to weaken Palestinian unity, likely saw the October 7 attack as an opportunity to galvanize public support for extreme measures. By allowing Hamas’s unprecedented success, he manufactured consent for policies that would otherwise be unthinkable.
The world’s leaders rarely let a crisis go to waste. Through propaganda, they direct public anger to serve their agendas, erasing the humanity of the oppressed in the process. Just as Naboth was slandered and killed for his land, Palestinians face cultural erasure and violence, enabled by a global audience too quick to accept the narrative of their dehumanization. To learn from history, we must discern the truth and reject the lies that justify such atrocities.
Irregular Ideation 