Is Modesty Oppression? No—Clothing as Protection, Group Identity and Civilization

What is clothing for?

Why do we put fabric all over our bodies—why not be naked?

For protection.

We wear clothes for a layer of protection against the elements.

Clothing helps us keep our body heat in the cold air. It is a barrier against harmful solar radiation. This invention allows us fragile creatures to navigate harsh environments that would kill us otherwise.

We also wear clothes as a matter of public health. This covering is beneficial from a sanitation perspective and for keeping all of our disease spreading bodily fluids off of shared surfaces.

There is a significant social component or function as well. Having the ‘right’ clothes matters if you want to fit in. It could be a religious group you wish to belong to or just the popular kids at school—but you will be judged by the outfits you wear.

My son, for example, found out the pair of sneakers (bought with his money) weren’t cool because they weren’t some recognized name brand. Agree or not, I know there’s no point in fighting this pressure to conform. If a kid does not want to be ridiculed they will wear the currently acceptable style.

Even those counter-cultural types are just responding to this pressure by going in an opposite—yet as completely predictable—direction. From Hipsters who all looked the same trying to be different to the Goth kids with their own uniform that is stricter than the typical and mainline dress regime—all are obeying a rule.

Even in trying to look different we end up looking the same.

Dress is a part of group identity—a way to belong to a group. Amish will know other Amish in the same way gang members or police officers recognize each other. It is by wearing the correct colors, or following the correct patterns, that an individual gains the necessary recognition to gain the benefit and protection of a community. Sure, we may not always like it, we might see this as being superficial, but clothing sends signals that can either make us more vulnerable or more safe.

Conservatives have long valued modesty over inviting attention. This is something developed from tradition. But not tradition without any practical purpose or merit. My wife, from a place where the government is a bit weaker, told me never to display any signs of wealth as this would make me into a target. And I could certainly protest the recommendation as an infringement on my freedom—that I am American, with rights, and can therefore will do whatever I please! However, that belief won’t save me from a mugger in a back alley, will it?

Modesty is about protection. It is about keeping hungry eyes off of those assets we don’t plan on giving away. No, that does not mean our immodesty justifies assault, theft or rape. It also does not mean our modesty is a foolproof protection. Rather, it is sort of like N95 masks and Covid, this is only one part of a larger strategy that is designed to minimize a particular risk rather than fully eliminate it.

It is sometimes a matter of public decency and respect for others. If there’s a sign on the door of a business: “no shirt, no shoes, no service” Why make a scene?

We should understand—as conservative people—that this public space comes with a set of public expectations and should probably comply without causing drama.

There was a time—and not very long ago—for the reasons outlined above, a woman wouldn’t leave the house without a proper dress, blouse and bonnet. Both men and women covered up, to be prepared for an environment that was harsh and only the insane did otherwise. Clothing was part of being civilized and a value of modesty tied very intimately to Christian religion and the Biblical standard.

Wolves in Sheep’s Skin

Some clothing is dishonest.

A disguise.

In order to gain acceptance and trust (going back to group identity and belonging) some will wear a costume of something they do not represent to gain trust And the “wolves in sheep’s skin” have infiltrated every conservative institution in this nation and turned them into a propaganda tool of godless empire.

Take Matt Schlapp, for example, the present chairman of American Conservative Union—also the first ever paid chair of Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) where he received a modest $600,000 in annual compensation—and an additional $175,000 for his wife on top of that. All while he has faced multiple allegations of groping men when he’s out drinking. One of the accusers—who had publicly apologized for the “misunderstanding”—was also quietly paid off (by a insurance company that represents ACU) to the tune of $480,000! More recently he got a little too touchy-feely with men at a Virginia bar. This is your conservative leadership.

Schlapp, speaking recently on Piers Morgan Uncensored, attempted to justify the killing of 175 elementary school girls in southern Iran—reasoning that they were saved from religious extremism:

Beinart: “We know that if the U.S. and Israel had not attacked a country that poses no serious threat to them—Israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons, America has thousands—that those girls would be alive…”

Schlapp: “They’d be alive in a burqa … this is … a barbaric society…”

Morgan: “hang on.”

[The conversation continues…]

Schlapp: “It’s hypocritical to say that these attacks harmed women and children when those women and children, the young girls that you reference, would be … live a life in a barbaric, unequal society behind a burqa, with no ability to make career choices…”

Uygur: “So just kill them?”

Schlapp: “No, that’s not what I’m saying either…”

Uygur: “That is what you said…”

While Schlapp apologists will claim that their accused man-groping ‘conservative’ was not actually saying what he seemed to be saying—it is abundantly clear that this was trying very hard to minimize a horrific slaughter.

Where do you even start?

Schlapp is directing his appeal to people who hate feminism and yet desperately want to get one over on their evil ‘liberal’ women by their disingenuously siding against ‘the patriarchy’ to justify murder? Either that or he’s a closeted leftist who hates women and religion so much that ridding the world of a school full of youngsters indoctrinated to believe that his unconsenting grabs of male parts is a sin feels right to him?

I won’t pretend to know what goes on in the twisted moral rot of this man’s mind, but as one who is friends with traditional women (Christian and Muslims) who do wear a veil his take is appalling. It would be equivalent to a feminist saying—“Well, at least those Amish girls killed at Nickel Mines will be spared a life of oppression speaking PA Dutch, getting married and working around the house!” What total horse shit. Women are as happy in traditional cultures are they are in any other—maybe even happier—the “happiness paradox” refers to the increase in female financial independence which has corresponded directly with decrease in happiness.

Sure, Schlapp does not come right out and say they’re better off dead. But what is he saying? What is he implying?

There this insane level of arrogance, which is reflected in Schlapp’s statement, of these people just assume that people who do not look exactly like them—share their cultural values, religious traditions or political perspectives—are better off dead. It is just plain bigoted nonsense.

The top picture is of Iranian women in a hijab. The bottom is Afghan women in burkas.

Furthermore, showing his ignorance, Iranian women don’t wear the burqa. They wear a hijab. It’s a detail that likely doesn’t matter to his MAGA target audience. And yet this is a huge difference. The burqa covers an entire face, it is more common with Sunnis (Saudi Arabia), and not required by Iranian law. The hijab, by contrast, doesn’t cover a face, it is a hair covering that is very similar to what Christian women wore for centuries before the society liberalized. Sure, maybe it shouldn’t be mandated, but it’s as Biblical as the Ten Commandments:

Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.
(1 Corinthians 11:4-6 NIV)

Incidentally, it is this passage above which makes it so strange that so many ‘Christian’ (Zionist) Presidents and public officials will wear a hat while praying and kissing a wall—deliberately dishonoring Christ. But more to the point, is this a “barbaric” practice? Is religious headgear, a Nun’s habit, some kind of terrible evil which totally excuses blowing up an elementary school?

Or is there something else going on here?

One of these is an Orthodox Christian the other is Mike Huckabee.

I’m going with something else. Schlapp is a neo-con grifter. A warlike and lying sexual deviant who will proclaim American values then fights for a nation that sodomizes their detainees, without consequences, now seeks to execute the people they oppress, and then calls those who oppose this “barbaric.” A society that drives it’s own abused daughters to suicide. The same people vigorously defend bombing of schools, hospitals, residential areas, the killing scores of children and civilians, then claims that the war about the liberation of women?

This is as much moral inversion as anything from the ‘woke’ left. We kill to save?

Furthermore, for all this talk about career choice, Iran graduates a significantly higher percentage of females in STEM fields than Israel or the US. So, in response to that part of Schlapp’s absurd statement: What are the career choices Iranian women are currently unable to make? Is he talking about OnlyFans?

Which woman is liberated? The one using her brains or the one displaying her body?

If we’re such great defenders of feminity, so much so that we can dictate to sovereign states what standards of decency they can or cannot have, why haven’t there been any Epstein client arrests?

Phony Fat Cracker Barrel Conservatives

The Schlapp types, neo-con Zionists, aren’t conservative at all. Sure, they always wrap themselves in Christian identity, but they’re not peacemakers, they feed prejudices and promote endless war that has cost trillions of dollars as well as millions of lives around the world. They will fein concern for Iranian rights in one breath then promote bombing the country into oblivion in the next.

They exploit jingoistic sentiment in the beer gut football crowd who (in their lack of Christian character) confuse toughness and masculinity with excessive violence. Every problem is solved with a gun or a bomb for them. This phony ‘conservativism’ of these war-mongering empire building neo-cons is antithetical to Christianity—it is anti-Christ and one part of their Epstein-class campaign to dismantle American values.

The Republican elites are as totally opposed to traditional American values as the Democrats—they just need our conservative votes.

The Cracker Barrel conservatives—people who get riled up over a change in corporate kitsch—enable these cultural vandals. The religious right talks incessantly about every tempest in a teapot controversy and then go mute when the Trump administration has worked overtime to protect billionaire pedophiles. These are the type that Jesus had called out for their straining on gnats and swallowing camels. They have no principles other than vote for the ‘red’ team on election day because we can’t let ‘blue’ team ‘liberals’ win—they imagine themselves as defenders of Western civilization yet will put their weight behind an oppressive regime if it is dressed right according to their own partisan fashion.

What’s important? The 4th and 5th Amendments or saving old-timey corporate kitsch?

They side against our own dissidents, make fun of Renee Good who was killed by ICE agents shouting conflicting orders, say Alex Pretti deserved getting shot in the back for being a guy who intervened when a woman was being assaulted, and then suddenly do a complete reversal to express moral outrage when Saleh Mohammadi, 19, was executed after a trial for murder of two police officers. The same people who can justify the deaths of 175 innocent children as “part of war,” are siding with an accused and convicted cop killer? What a mindless propaganda-blinded and flip-flopping lot—we’re living in a scene from 1984.

The same people who justify the killing of Good and Pretti defend an Iranian wrestler convicted of the murder of two police officers.

Trump wrapping himself in a flag (literally) is all it took. All he needs to do is hold up a Bible, hand out a few signed copies of the Bible for the MAGA faithful, and suddenly he’s the next thing to Jesus in the Evangeli-con pantheon. His aggression becomes integrity, his lewdness honesty, and arrogance a virtue. And he is aware, see how Trump described the cult’s devotion during the run up to his first term: “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters, OK?”

Trump is a manifestation of cultural rot, we celebrate immodesty and excess. The book of Philippians describes some who profess faith as the “enemies of the cross of Christ” (3:18) and proceeds to warn, “Their destiny is destruction, their god is their stomach, and their glory is in their shame” and “their mind is set on earthly things.” And this is our American consumerism. We see ourselves as the heroes, as representing freedom and democracy, when we’re really Egypt and Sodom (oppressor and corruption) cloaked in a pretense of righteousness.

We could use a bit of modesty. A moment of introspection and self-awareness.

Reclaiming American Christian Values

The U.S. has never been the “shining city on the hill” envisioned in John Winthrop’s 1630 sermon and highlighted by Ronald Reagan.

Moral excellence is certainly a great goal even if we fall short. However, it is an aim which requires repentance. There are many things for this American nation should want to turn from. The ethnic cleansing of native populations, the institution of slavery, many wars of aggression and expansion—there is no purity here.

The U.S. has, if anything been exceptionally violent—from massacres in North America to the brutal occupation of the Philippines to the millions killed across the world as a result of aggressive policies—this country has never ceased in wars for control over resources. This conquest, sold to the public as some kind of moral mission or “Manifest Destiny,” was to conceal greed and a desire for things not ours to have.

There is no special American exception to the Christian requirement that all repent of their sins. That’s a starting point to the U.S. being great. To be truly great the goal is not to turn back the past mistakes, but turning away from them.

We should consider both bad and good examples from the past as a basis for improvement in the present.

This takes humility, not hubris.

The sin at the root of all moral pretense and posturing is pride—the very first sin, the one that changed Lucifer from God’s second in command into the father of lies. Pride tells us our culture, our politics, and our ways are just superior. Pride is what lets us dress up in sheep’s clothing of “conservative values” while living like wolves. Pride is what lets Matt Schlapp (or any of the other neo-con grifters) lecture on liberation while his own hands grope men in the dark and his mouth justifies the slaughter of schoolgirls. Pride is what lets the Cracker Barrel crowd wave a Bible one minute—rant against abortion, feminism, wokeism—only to cheer endless war and merciless bombings in the next, ignoring the plank in their own eye.

Christian conservatism worthy of the name begins with the opposite of pride: humility. It begins with the recognition that we are not owed respect—we must show it first. Just as modesty in clothing is not about shame but about protecting what is sacred, a respect of what is God’s, so too is respect in every other sphere. You do not demand entrance to another man’s house, another nation’s culture, or another woman’s dignity by force. Traditional modest dress of the past was never “oppression.” It was armor. It was just a public declaration: “I belong to something higher than my appetites. I will respect and you will respect me.”

The same principle applies to foreign policy, to political leadership, to every claim of “American exceptionalism.” An authentic conservatism does not bomb a school to “free” the girls inside it. It does not wrap imperial greed in the language of feminism or democracy. It does not make demands with threats of violence. Rather it says, with the Apostle Paul, “Let your gentleness be evident to all” (Phil 4:5) and “If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone” (Rom 12:18).

Principled Christian conservatism is not a costume. It is not red hats, Cracker Barrel nostalgia, or trillion-dollar defense contracts dressed up as patriotism. It is living a life of repentance. It is about mutual respect. It is the refusal to celebrate pride in any form—whether of immodesty, the aggressive “grab ’em by the pussy” arrogance of entitled men or just indifference about how our actions impact others. It is discipline of protecting what should be protected and also refusing to sacrifice our values for expediency.

If we want to belong to the Body of Christ then we must wear the right uniform code: humility, not hubris; respect, not ridicule; modesty, not exceptionalism. We must stop pretending America is already righteous or beyond reproach and start acting humbly like the sinners we are. Only then will we ever regain the respect we have lost. Only then will our clothing—literal and spiritual—actually protect instead of provoke.

More imperial “forever war” for the benefit of the Epstein-class.

Let the attire of our attitude preach truth: we are fragile, we are fallen, and the only safety worth having comes from walking in fear of the Lord, not by military might. That is the conservatism worth conserving—the repentance that can make us an example in the world and is the actual foundational basis of Christian civilization.

Schlapp says that Iran is a “barbaric culture” for dress standards different from our own and that bombing them is about defense of civilization. But a principled conservative is about consistent rules, true impartiality and no favoritism. It doesn’t decide if cop killers (or killer cops) are heroes or an attack on us all according to political needs. A civilized person seeks coherence and harmony, not unpredictability, brutality and dominance. It prefers local control and respects sovereign space of others. It gains a position through competency, not by trickery and deception, nor by threats and coercion.

Christian civilization rejects use of violence and notions of blood guilt. All must clothe themselves in the righteousness of Jesus—a clothing that we put on through Baptism, not our birth or bloodline:

For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
(Galatians 3:26-29 KJV)

We replace lying with truth, maliciousness with kindness, fury with forgiveness, theft with generosity and are told “to put on the new self” and with this to be “created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness” (Eph 4:22–32, Col 3:5–14) John Chrysostom (c. AD 347—407) described this putting on of Christ as “never to be forsaken of Him, and His always being seen in us through our holiness, through our gentleness”

Civilization may need to be qualified. We want Christian civilization, not an Old Testament violence reenactment.

We must reject the perversion of those who promote moral inversion where killing is an act of liberation and a society where more women graduate with STEM degrees called “barbaric” by the Epstein-class.

Schlapp’s depraved reasoning is a symptom of arrogance, not righteousness. If Jesus is our Lord, then we should be clothed in humility and a gentle example rather than a force of fury or violence.

The militarism of neo-cons is not the armor of God—it is a false protection—we need the attitude of repentance.

************************

Postscript: The point of this essay isn’t to defend the Islamic Republic of Iran. I have no doubts about it being a very brutal and intolerant regime. I also don’t write this as a strong advocate of modesty standards. But only to promote introspection about what we excuse and condemn. In one breath we are outraged by an execution in Iran, in the next we ignore the bombing of children in Gaza, Lebanon, and Iran. The same people who decry liberalism in the West celebrate the leftists in the East. This isn’t only about other people. This is also about me. After warning about Trump in 2014, I voted for the narcissist three times. He promised he would drain the swamp, to end the forever wars, and release the Epstein files. It was when he tried to gaslight about continued interest in Epstein that I realized I had been had. What I will say in my defense is that it wouldn’t be much improvement to vote for team blue. Kamala Harris couldn’t think of anything she would have done differently than Joe Biden. She shushed those trying to bring attention to the Gaza genocide and the Democrat party establishment has been as warlike as the Republicans despite their constituents. I must concede that we will not vote ourselves out of this. Society must change. True devotion to the base Christian principles—where Jesus is way more than a bobblehead on the dashboard of empire. If we want to change the world we need to lead by example rather than by force. The people of the world easily see through our facade, our oblivious talk of freedom and democracy, they see Egypt and Sodom.

Christ and the Antithesis: The Netanyahu “Jesus vs. Genghis Khan” Comparison

Recently, in remarks defending his aggression, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—quoted historian Will Durant to declare “history proves that, unfortunately and unhappily, Jesus Christ has no advantage over Genghis Khan” because if you are strong enough, ruthless enough, powerful enough, evil will overcome good and aggression will overcome moderation—laid bare a stark moral inversion.

In this view, the teachings of Jesus represent a path of weakness, losing, while the conqueror’s ruthlessness ensures survival. The modern state of Israel, in its actions and rhetoric, often seems to embody this reversal of means: where the New Testament calls for love, the response is enmity; where it urges mercy, the strategy is application of overwhelming force; where Jesus promises a blessing to the meek, Israeli’s power is pursued through dominance.

If the Gospel says to love your neighbor, policies build barriers and displace. If Jesus commands turning the other cheek, retaliation escalates. If it blesses peacemakers, the calculus becomes one of preemptive attacks over moderation. And the Sermon on the Mount teaching and example of Jesus is treated not as a blueprint for life but as a cautionary tale for losers—nice ideals unfit for a world where barbarians crash the gates unless you become the stronger barbarian first.

Many professing Christians appear to accept this pragmatic dismissal of their Lord’s teachings in the “real world,” but I believe those teachings—if sincerely and universally applied by the faithful—would bring profound benefit even to ordinary people caught in wars, the soldiers and civilians alike.

But how would this look in practice?

I decided to arrange the teaching of the Gospel into a series of logical gates on a pathway of escalation-reversal which will lead to a new systemic reality:

A. Repentance: The Changing of Our Own Individual Perspective

1) The Golden Rule (Empathy): We must see things from our ‘enemies’ perspective. Why are they actually doing what they’re doing? This is a step that requires looking past propaganda and prejudice to find the grievance, then stop to think how we would respond if we were facing similar circumstances and then adjust accordingly. If we don’t want our own city bombed—then the logic of bombing theirs will immediately collapse.

2) Loving Your Enemies (Humanization): If we start to see a neighbor in our opponent rather than some negative label (terrorist, liberal, rats, etc) we’ll be less inclined to be in favor of just incinerating them and their families. This makes us more immune to the wartime propaganda that caricatures and demonizes opponents as being something less than us. Love is to see them as being human rather than aliens. The ‘enemy’ is someone’s brother, uncle, husband, father or friend—can you at least love those harmed by violence against them?

B. Restraint: Being Deliberate Rather Than Reactionary

3) Turn the Other Cheek (Non-retaliation): This is the one that goes most against us and probably where I would get the most resistance from Evangeli-cons. At the very least it is prudent to count the cost of the response in kind (Luke 14:28-33) and ask if we can afford to go down the path of tit-for-tat violence. A tactical pause can be beneficial if only to avoid a trap. Many believe that the path to dominance is by meeting every provocation with an aggressive response. But this may be exactly what the other side anticipated; they expect you to flail wildly, overextend, and give them the opportunity to expose your true character to others. There is special power in non-response—employment of a Machiavellian strategy of not letting others set your tempo—to stay in control and dominate on another level.

4) Putting Away the Sword (Disarmament): Saber-rattling is a go-to intimidation tactic, the idea of putting on displays of military prowess to deter an opponent. However it does not usually work as a long-term plan. If you wave a gun in someone’s face you’ll be more likely to start an arms race. People don’t like to be humiliated. Drawing a weapon will create a feedback loop that may truly only increase the threat. The U.S. war machine dropped nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the thinking this would back down the Soviets—it only led Stalin to prioritize the building of their own nuclear deterrence.

C. Try a Little Diplomatic Engagement

5. Overcome Evil with Good (Reframe the Conversation): Dropping bombs is fun. It can be very satisfying to see those who we have been led to believe’deserve it’ squirm under pressure. But this is a path of mutual destruction. It makes a whole lot more sense to turn the competitor into a partner with a peace offering: “Hey, so we are sorry we overthrew your democratic government to help BP steal your oil—here is the money we owed you from that defense contract which fell through!” It is difficult to harbor ill will towards someone who is actively doing nice things for you. War is expensive.

6. The Peacemaker (Mediator): It is much easier to stay on the sidelines or to take a side. Everyone says they want peace, to avoid wars, and yet few are willing to build the bridge. As the saying goes “if there’s a will there’s a way” and making peace is a matter of will. It may take a little extra effort and risk, yet peace pays dividends. War is a very costly affair both in terms of men and material—finding a way to unravel a conflict before it blows up is a win-win for all but those war profiteers

D. Mission Accomplished: Building a New Reality

7. Ministry of Reconciliation (Restoration): The ultimate goal of all the above is not only to get to a “ceasefire” or ending of the current war, but to a “Shalom” which is to say a bonding into a whole of the various factions. We want to end all war by marrying the two-halves of the conflict to make something better. The Japanese and Americans are far better off exchanging money for minivans than trading munitions. So maybe if we spent as much money pursuing these favorable outcomes, as we did to support the bloated Department of War (or Defense) we would finally reach those better ends we claim to seek despite our never fully investing?

The Tremendous Benefit of Learning From Past Mistakes.

When I was younger and dumber I believed a lot of the propaganda put in front of me. Iraq was a threat. Despite having nothing to do with 9/11—an attack by citizens of our own allies—Saddam Hussain was spun into the real threat. Despite a promise back then of “tremendous benefits” from the same man mocking Jesus today—the results were 4,492 U.S. military deaths, with over 32,000 wounded, and an overall cost of approximately three trillion dollars.

For sake of reference, gas in 2002 cost $1.36 per gallon—we now pay $3.91 and will only see that continue to rise as the onslaught continues. Is this truly the “winning, winning, winning” that we’ve heard Netanyahu advertise?

Allow me this spoof of the infamous 2002 Iraq “enormous positive reverberations” testimony that Netanyahu gave in the run up to the Iraq war:

If we had taken out the path of endless war back then, I guarantee you that it would have had enormous positive reverberations in the region… but instead we did the opposite, and look what happened.

We believed removing Saddam would topple tyrants and spark democracy like dominoes—yet it unleashed chaos, empowered Iran, birthed ISIS, cost trillions, and left generations scarred. I’ve seen the soldiers who returned maimed. The ‘positive reverberations’ turned into shockwaves of suffering that echoed for decades.

So today, let’s finally learn the lesson from our history: aggression doesn’t guarantee victory; it often only guarantees the next war. The real tremendous benefit comes not from more bombs and regime changes, but from our repentance, restraint, and reconciliation—from applying the very teachings we too often set aside.

If we invert the escalation instead of the Gospel, perhaps the region—and the world—will finally see some true positive reverberations: peace that lasts, neighbors who humanize each other, and a Shalom worth guaranteeing.

The costs of war are enormous. There are no winners in war. Even if your side comes out ‘victorious’ it is a drain of a nation’s blood and treasure. That’s the real picture, the real result, and we will be the ones bearing the increased burden. The U.S. debt has gone from being 3.55 trillion dollars in 2002 to $39.05 trillion and not slowing down. A big chunk of that is the bill for endless war. So maybe for Netanyahu there’s “enormous positive reverberations” because it didn’t cost him a dime, but the reality is that we have lost reputation—the little that remains of Christian witness and confidence that we once had to manage world affairs. The Petrodollar and, with it, exorbitant privilege—which gave us the economic advantages that made us a global superpower. And maybe this loss of prestige is by design? Israel has benefitted at our great expense.

Many Americans want death to Iranian people. The phrase used by protestors of US imperialism was specifically aimed at the regime that endlessly harassed their people, at policies and not people. They blamed the regime of billionaires and politicians who rule over us.

The biggest lie of this century is that abandoning the way of Jesus is our most realistic option. The truth is that we’re sacrificing our future with the false idea that our security depends on us killing all who oppose the same tyranny we experience every tax season when we pay for all the bombs that rain on Gaza. Our actions are going to have immeasurable consequences.

Dismiss this if you like. Side with the antithesis of Christ and say that it is totally unrealistic. But why pray, hypocritically, “Thy will on Earth as it is in heaven” while then simultaneously plotting to wipe out those we’re expressly told to love? I’m not saying this is easy, and yet this is simply part and parcel of a religion that teaches you will be forgiven as you forgive and judged as you judge. I’m convinced if we work our way down this list—taking care of first things first—we could have what seems impossible.

Echoes of Imperialism: From Pearl Harbor to Venezuela – Parallels in Desperation and Decline

In the annals of history, empires often have become cornered by their ambitions and are forced into desperate acts that hasten their downfall. Imperial Japan in the lead-up to World War II provides a stark example: backed into an economic stranglehold by US oil embargoes, it launched a very daring attack on Pearl Harbor in a bid for survival. And, today, the United States faces a eerily similar predicament—not as the embargoes’ enforcer, but as a nation grappling with big resource dependencies, massive mounting debts, and quickly eroding global influence. This parallel becomes extremely vivid when examining U.S. policies toward Venezuela—where the act of desperate aggression of Imperial Japan echos Trump’s bold moves on Greenland and the kidnapping of Nicolás Maduro. Drawing on historical precedents and the current events, we see superpower teetering on the edge—actions driven more by vulnerability than strength.

To fully understand this analogy, recall the circumstances that propelled Japan toward Pearl Harbor. In the 1930s and early 1940s, Japan’s imperial expansion in Asia relied heavily on imported oil, much of it from the United States. When President Franklin D. Roosevelt imposed an oil embargo in 1941—as a response to Japan’s actions in China and Indochina—this act was a declaration of an economic war. And it also set a countdown timer on Japan’s military machine. Without fuel, their economy and war efforts would grind to a halt and within months. Faced with this dire situation—down seven points with a minute left on the clock, as one might say—Japan opted for a Hail Mary: a surprise attack on the US Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. The hope was to cripple U.S. naval power long enough to negotiate a favorable peace deal and secure resource access. Tactically brilliant, the audacious strike was an amazing success, devastated battleships and caused enormous damage. However, not wanting to risk detection, the Japanese decided against a third wave and left fuel depots and repair facilities ready to use. Crucially, the U.S. aircraft carriers, that would prove decisive in the coming battles, were absent from moorings.

The Japanese leaders underestimated America’s resolve and their unmatched industrial capacity—which soon out-produced and overwhelmed them. What began as a bid for survival ended in their total humiliating defeat.

Fast-forward to the present, and the United States occupies the opposite seat at the table—or rather, a mirrored one. Once the architect of oil embargoes, America now imports much of its oil, and has refineries optimized for heavy crude from sources like Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Venezuela. Our economy ticks like a time bomb, burdened by dependencies on foreign production (notably China for manufacturing) and a military that, while formidable, also shows cracks of vulnerability. Recent simulations highlight this: in combined naval exercises, a relatively cheap ($100 million) diesel air-independent propulsion (AIP) submarine has “sunk” a powerful $6 billion nuclear U.S. Navy aircraft carrier, underscoring how newly arrived asymmetric threats could shatter the illusion of invincibility. This mirrors Japan’s overconfidence in its naval prowess, only to face industrial and logistical realities.

Nowhere is this desperation more apparent than in the US . dealings with Venezuela, a nation long in the shadow of the American empire.

Nobody comes close to the US in military capabilities.

South America’s history is riddled with bullying US interventions prioritizing corporate interests over national sovereignty—from the violence of CIA-orchestrated coups to those direct military incursions—a history that has birthed the term “Banana Republic.” For over a century, as long as resources flowed northward, Washington turned a blind eye to the most brutal regimes and their human rights abuses. The US military has often served solely as an enforcement arm of a handful billionaire oligarchs, who in turn fund politicians in DC in a corrupt cycle of public risk for private gain masquerading as Capitalism.

U.S.-Backed Kidnappings, Assassinations and Coups in Latin America Since 1950

1954 — Guatemala — President Jacobo Árbenz — Overthrown in CIA Operation PBSUCCESS

1960s, 70s, 80s — Cuba — Prime Minister Fidel Castro — The US tried to assassinate him about 634 times and invaded the country during the Bay of Pigs

1961 — Dominican Republic — Rafael Trujillo — US-backed coup and assassination

1964 — Brazil — President João Goulart — US-supported coup

1965 — Dominican Republic — President Juan Bosch — US-supported coup

1970 — Chile — General René Schneider — US-supported kidnapping and assassination

1971 — Bolivia — President Juan José Torres — US-supported coup

1973 — Chile — President Salvador Allende — US-backed coup and “suicide” of Allende

1976 — Argentina — President Isabel Perón — US-backed coup

1976 — Bolivia (in exile in Argentina) — former President Juan José Torres — US-supported assassination

1981 — Panama — General Omar Torrijos — Death in suspicious plane crash with likely US support

1981 — Ecuador — President Jaime Roldós — Death in suspicious plane crash with likely US support

1983 — Grenada — Prime Minister Maurice Bishop — US invasion and removal of Bishop in Operation Urgent Fury

1980s — Nicaragua — Sandinista government — Sustained covert regime-change war

1989 — Panama — Gen. Manuel Noriega — Invasion, kidnapping and transfer to US custody in Operation Just Cause

2002 — Venezuela — President Hugo Chávez — Kidnapped by US-backed military forces for less than 48 hours before being restored to power

2004 — Haiti — President Jean-Bertrand Aristide — Kidnapped and flown to Africa on a US military plane

2009 — Honduras — President Manuel Zelaya — US-backed kidnapping and coup

Venezuela’s “crime” was simple: asserting control over its vast oil reserves. When the government nationalized assets for sake of their people, the U.S. corporations and their political allies responded with their crippling sanctions—akin to thugs blocking shoppers from a well-stocked store. These measures aren’t about justice; they’re punishment for defying the empire. Claims that Venezuela “stole” oil infrastructure built by U.S. firms ignore offers to compensate, which were rebuffed. Why accept a fair payment when gross exploitation of resources is far more profitable? Recent actions under President Trump, including the controversial removal of the Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro to face a US judge, smack of desperation: a bid to seize assets and bolster a faltering balance sheet. It’s framed as liberating a people from Socialism, but the real reason is resource control.

US propaganda blames Venezuelan suffering on internal policies—like universal healthcare—ignoring how our sanctions starve their economy. Socialism is not a problem in Israel—why only here?

Judge Alvin Hellerstein will decide Maduro’s fate.

Meanwhile, alternative oil sources like Saudi Arabia or Russia remain volatile and keeping access is an increasingly risky proposition.

And, while I firmly believe mutual respect could yield great prosperity for the US and Venezuela—would both allow the migrants fleeing poverty to stay home and secure stable energy for the US without war—that is a peaceful solution that is far less profitable for US-based oil billionaires. Maduro had also taken a strong stance against the killing in Gaza. The country of Venezuela—under Hugo Chávez—banned usery and enforced a regime of conservative morals (US pornography banned and on gay marriage) all of which defies US banking and business interests.

This imperial overreach extends to the broader economic woes in the US, painting a picture of a nation painting itself into a corner. The US national debt, which first hit $1 trillion in 1981, now ballooned to $38 trillion and now they add a nearly trillion dollars every other month in an unsustainable parabolic ascent. The US currency debasement, endless printing of money, punishes global holders, and is fueling the rise of BRICS as the safer alternative to the dollar’s long abused “exorbitant privilege.” Worse, all this government spending, regardless of the party, simply funnels wealth to oligarchs via their political connections—a trickle-down economics by another name. So called “tax cuts for the rich” are derided, and yet inflation achieves this exact same redistribution upward. The weaponization of the dollar, more importantly, erodes faith in its reserve currency status, undermining the very foundations of the post-World War II systems on which US strength rests—like Bretton Woods and the Petrodollar.

Our creditors can yank the rug at any time.

Compounding this loss of US reputation is a propaganda machine straight out of George Orwell’s 1984. No, show trials and kangaroo courts aren’t relics of Soviet excess; they’re very much alive in US actions against the figures like Maduro, tried in a rigged system far from impartiality. Maduro’s criticism of Gaza violence preceded his ouster, timed suspiciously after meetings between Trump and Israeli leaders. Media manipulates the narratives—vanishing massive supporting rallies or amplifying astroturf campaigns—much like the staged toppling of Saddam Hussein’s statue in Iraq, later regretted by participants who longed for pre-invasion stability. Skepticism abounds: those who saw through Russian collusion hoaxes or Trump’s prosecutions as lawfare suddenly swallow anti-Venezuela propaganda whole, revealing partisan blindness over principle. Lady Justice’s blindfold is absent at the top, swayed by partisan politics and payments. We endure psyops, cancel culture, thought policing, and memory holes, us screaming “2+2=5” at our cult leaders’ behest.

In historic parallel, the US supported Gaza genocide also evokes a direct comparison to Japan’s Nanjing Massacre, the unverified casualties now dwarfing historical horrors. America’s “Zionist” alignment only isolates us further on a world stage, very similar to Japan’s Axis ties. Trump’s tactical “success” in Venezuela may prove a strategic blunder, like Pearl Harbor: a short-term victory that awakens global resistance. And forcing the Danes to relinquish Greenland only drives a wedge deeper. Other nations witnessing another blatant disrespect of sovereignty—applying US laws extraterritorially, flouting the “rules based order” precedents—will only serve accelerate de-dollarization or even lead to alliances against us.

Stephen Miller: “only power and the willingness to use it matters.”

In conclusion, expansion oriented Zionist America, much like the Soviet Union of old, now perpetrates atrocities and abuses—from the bloodshed in Gaza to the brazen seizure of foreign leaders and threats—that erode our moral foundation and alienate the world. This path of treating partner nations like a pimp does a prostitute—the extracting resources through coercion and sanctions—is unsustainable. There are far better ways to achieve our goals beyond application of brute force—unlike the recent assertion by Zionist Trump adviser Stephen Miller saying “only power and the willingness to use it matters.” Embracing mutual respect, fair negotiations, and genuine diplomacy could foster true alliances, allowing us to secure resources without conflict, and also restore America’s standing. History warns that all empires built on military domination crumble; it’s time to choose a different course before our own Hail Mary seals our fate.

By Way of Deception

The Bondi beach shooting was terrible and most especially that an 11-year-old girl was among those killed. The images from this violent incident drew global condemnation with the victims being Jewish people who were celebrating Hanukkah. Immediately Zionist propagandists blamed the protests against genocide in Gaza and Muslims for this act of evil. This was the consequence of dissent against Israel, they claimed.

But many of us have been predicting terrorist attacks for months now and for a completely different reason. In August, in Sydney, there was a massive protest for the people being massacred in Gaza that had gained international attention. Then in September Australia officially recognized a State of Palestine. And that Israeli government representatives so quickly tried to link terrorism to these two peaceful acts (in opposition to their indiscriminate Gaza campaign) was very cynical and almost too opportunistic.

But the biggest tell was how Bibi Netanyahu lied straight into the camera about the hero who got shot twice as he risked everything to tackle the gunman. In Hebrew the Israeli said he saw “a video of a Jew who pounces on one of the murderers, takes his weapon, and saves who knows how many lives.” But it is very clear that Ahmed al Ahmed is not a Jew and is, in fact, a Syrian Muslim. So why would Netanyahu say this knowing full well that the identity of the hero was revealed?

The simple reason for this brazenness is he has done this many times before. You can present this kind of false counter narrative and get away with it in many cases. When something happens in Israel he can totally get away with it, or turn it into a he said she said, but in Bondi it was very clear that this guy named Ahmed was no Jew and actual video arrived of his heroism before any of the typical Zionist damage control could be done. It’s a window into what happens all of time after the IDF bombs are church or a hospital full of innocent people.

This scramble to distribute blame to parties completely uninvolved and claim the hero is just a sign of how dishonest Netanyahu will be to promote Zionist tropes.

But there’s something more sinister here we need to discuss and that’s a pattern that will quickly emerge for anyone who has studied the history of Zionism.

In Iraq, in a period between 1950-1951, the Arab Jewish population in the city of Baghdad came under attack. There was a series of bombings that killed or injured dozens and eventually led to some arrests. But it wasn’t Islamic extremists who were caught. No it was Mossad or Zionist agents. Why would they attack their own people? Well, the new Israeli state needed manpower and scaring Arab Jews out of their communities to the ‘safety’ of Israel solved this crisis.

In 1954, in Egypt, a terror plot was foiled. This false flag attempt, called the “Lavon affair,” was orchestrated by Egyptian Jews at the direction of Israeli intelligence and the targets were Egyptian, American and British civilian locations. And, apparently the Muslim brotherhood was going to be set up to take the blame.

June 8th, 1967, the brutal attack on the USS Liberty, an intelligence ship that was sailing in international waters, is another example. This was during the six-day war when the IDF launched a sustained and multi-wave assault on the lightly armed ship killing 34 Americans and injuring 171. The Israelis claim it was an accident. But this ship was clearly flying a US flag and easily identified as a US Navy vessel. And the only reason what had happened is because of a radio operator who broke through the Israeli jamming of their distress calls. A US carrier group was alerted and the Israelis forced to break off the treacherous act without ever finishing the job.

Can you imagine Iran or anyone else doing this without the American public screaming for retribution?

I’ve recently learned about the 1994 London Israeli embassy bombing where one device targeted the embassy and another service exploded outside a Jewish interest in the city. Two Palestinian engineers were found guilty However a former MI5 officer, Annie Machon, later claimed that an internal MI5 assessment saw the finger prints of Israeli intelligence in the bombings. The Israelis had been lobbying for the British to provide more intelligence information to Israel and this terror accomplished that objective. It killed two birds with one stone, in fact, the Palestinian solidarity movement was just starting to gain traction and was certainly dampened by this.

But the most recent and obvious attempt at a false flag happened in Pakistan. In a covert operation during 2007–2008, Israeli Mossad agents impersonated CIA officers—using forged U.S. passports, American currency, and CIA credentials—attempted to recruit members of the Pakistan-based Sunni militant group Jundallah for attacks inside Iran, including bombings and assassinations targeting Iranian officials and civilians, as part of the broader effort by the Zionists to destabilize Tehran’s regime amid nuclear tensions. The deception, conducted openly in places like London, aimed to frame the United States as the sponsor of the terrorism, exploiting Jundallah’s sectarian separatist motives while also providing plausible deniability for Israel; U.S. officials uncovered the ruse through internal investigations debunking earlier media reports of CIA involvement, leading to outrage in the Bush White House (with US President Bush reportedly “going ballistic”), strained intelligence cooperation under Obama, and lef eventually to the U.S. terrorist designation of Jundallah in 2010—although no public repercussions were imposed on Israel.

This is ideological. An approach used over and over by those who laid the foundation of the modern Israeli state.

So there are multiple examples of Mossad planning attacks and setting up others as their fall guys. This could very well be the case with Tyler Robinson, who is currently charged in the assassination of Charlie Kirk where—like the London bombings—circumstantial case seems strong and does make me wonder where the young man stood on Israel’s genocide? Maybe he was too vocal with the wrong people online and became the perfect patsy? It’s really not all that difficult to plant evidence or get someone to a location. Perhaps Tyler dropped out of college because he thought he was working on a CIA operation?

It just so happens that Utah State University has a Center for Anticipatory Intelligence—a recruiting node for the CIA. So is it possible that Robinson was approached by someone who claimed to be working for the CIA and set him up to be the fall guy?

The question of who benefits must always be asked. I know we’re supposed to believe that Arabs and Palestinians are just dumb beasts who don’t understand how bad that their actions look. But, bigotry aside, there is very little reason why someone would kill people at Bondi beach in support of Gaza, it is even less likely that Palestinians in West Bank would want to burn down a Christmas tree when they understand the optics side of the information warfare.

It’s just strange that those who scream out a “Pallywood” slur every time a journalist lines up a bunch of hungry children for a shot cannot imagine a country with a huge budget and the world’s most sophisticated propaganda machine doing this.

Every week the Hasbura story changes. One week there’s no starvation. The next week there is starvation but it’s Hamas. And then the narrative shifts back to no famine again.

Netanyahu has sent hundreds of Israeli young people to die while his son lives in Florida. And expresses no sorrow as he slaughters Gaza’s children. Do you believe that this man has too much conscience to order a deadly false flag because some of his own Jewish people would be killed? It may be unimaginable to you, as someone with a Christian worldview, but there’s no similar respect for individuals with those of a fascist or tribal mindset. Netanyahu isn’t like you. He’s a psychopath. He justifies what he does as necessary to protect the whole of Israel—when it’s truly about him escaping justice for his corruption.

From pager bombs blowing up in homes and markets, to the bombings and assassinations that Israel was founded on, disguising themselves as Palestinians, to the recent unrest in Iran, there’s not one period of Zionist history where the secret plots ended. It is a pattern. Sure, the attacks have become much more sophisticated (practice makes perfect) and yet no more concern is shown for the innocent. It is up to us if we’ll let them continue to blackmail the world into compliance or not. But at the very least we must be aware of the deception.

From Tribal Vengeance to Universal Justice: In Pursuit of One Higher Standard

The default position for most people is some form of tribal ethic. If it is done to them or their own family by another tribe it is a horrendous and terrible crime. But, when only those in another tribe are hurt or if they are afraid that confronting the abuse will hurt their own tribal agenda—then suddenly the unforgivable becomes a “Who cares, everyone does it, why are you bringing that up again?”

Tribal ethics amount to doing only what is good for the tribe—usually sacrificing the rights of an individuals in the tribe and always denying the basic humanity of those outside of the tribe. Individual rights of those in the tribe are generally honored, but only so far as protecting them is useful to the collective and not as something that is absolute or immutable. If a few die for sake of the tribal order—are stoned to death for daring to pick up sticks on the Sabbath—that’s just how it is.

The Old Testament is full of this. Your own are completely free to enslave, rape or take from those outside the tribe and yet would be enraged if one of their own were treated in the same way—like when vengeance was taken by Dinah’s brothers who wiped out a whole city for sake of the family’s honor. If it were within the tribe the attitude would be quite a bit different. Under Moses law this was simply a matter of paying the price of the bride and not a death sentence. And it is clear that things morally abhorrent by a modern standard, like genocide, were done by the command of God.

Tribalism is a feature of politics, a natural or default condition, where we defend our own and demonize the other. To the left Charlie Kirk deserved to die for his sins of hate they claim were harmful to their woke collection of identities. The Evangeli-cons soak up the propaganda from Israel that paints children in Gaza as future terrorists. We protect the people most like us because and adjust our moral rules according to the situational and immediate needs of our tribe.

A Case For One Higher Universal Standard

But a Christian ethic is completely different from this. It says sin is sin. Evil is evil no matter who is committing it or who it is against.

And, if anything, those who are in the church, who profess their faith in Jesus, should be held to a much higher standard. There is no room for favoritism (James 2:1, Romans 2:11) or carving out exemption for elites or even our friends and family. Jesus said to love our enemies (Matt 5:44, Luke 6:27) and even ‘hate’ our own family (Luke 14:26) if necessary to truly be his follower. Even our thoughts subjected to a standard of love and forbearance.

Jesus didn’t get hung on a cross for saying cutesy stuff that is easy to do. And I really do not expect anyone to live by that code. It requires actual faith and a true belief Jesus is what he said he was to make sacrificing ourselves for his ethic reasonable:

Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 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.
(Romans 12:17-21 NIV)

But even if you don’t truly believe in a future eternal reward or God, there is a reason why universal morality is better than our default tribalism. And that is an idea of what goes around comes around. Sure, you might not care about someone else’s daughter being sexually exploited by wealthy and powerful men—most especially if they are furthering your partisan political agenda—and yet we want to have a society where there’s justice or the injustice will eventually spread to us.

This is the big difference between my own understanding and the one that is far more popular: Good and evil never change on the basis of who is doing it or if I benefit. If it is wrong for the neighbor to kill my dog under most circumstances it is wrong for me to kill theirs. And if I (or one my own) start to act with impunity—are continually forgiven for things others are always condemned for—eventually this will piss off enough of the ‘others’ that they’ll dish out their version of justice against their abusers.

The Fallacy of Judeo-Christian Values

Evangeli-cons want the world to forgive for all their infractions and yet never forget if a victim fights back against their aggression. It is the very opposite of what Christ taught and anti-Christ. Jesus would likely warn us that how we judge we will be judged and the measure we use will be measured back to us. Which should make us tremble when we consider the slaughter and razing to the ground of Gaza using bombs we provided—there will be no call for mercy on the behalf of those who claim that young children are terrorists so they can kill them:

We are imposing a complete siege on Gaza. There will be no electricity, no food, no water, no fuel. Everything is closed. We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly.
October 13, 2023, Isaac Herzog, President

Just as it is clear that the right wing was right, today everyone says it is clear all Gazans must be annihilated… There is no logic in differentiating between uniformed [Hamas] and the rest of the inhabitants there.
September 2025, Moshe Saada, Likud MK

Every child born in Gaza is already a terrorist, from the moment of his birth.
January 15, 2024, Nissim Vaturi, Likud Deputy Speaker

And they were stating their genocidal intent long before October 7th:

Huwara needs to be wiped out. I think the State of Israel should do it… Water, electricity, and food must be cut off from the Gaza Strip. Those who do not die by bullets will die of hunger.
February 2023, Bezalel Smotrich, Finance Minister

This shows the absurdity of what is called Judeo-Christian values. Tribal logic says it is okay to kill man, woman and child of the rival so we can take the land for ourselves. Whereas Christian morality calls for all to be saved (1 Tim 2:4, 1 Pet 3:9) and erases the boundaries of tribal identities based on gender, race or social status. It is the polar opposite of having a chosen people with a license to take and kill. Jesus offended his ‘righteous’ ethnic audience by saying that a pagan had greater faith than all of Israel. To embrace this radical ethic is to reject the tribalism that fuels division and violence, choosing instead a universal justice that holds all accountable and protects all, not just the chosen few. Only by abandoning the hypocrisy of tribal loyalty can we hope to build a world where the measure of our judgment does not return to condemn us, but instead fosters a shared humanity that is grounded in love of Jesus.

A Fundamentally New Way of Thinking

The Christian ethic really is a total reversal of fundamental attribution error. It is easy to attribute what others do to us to a matter of their immutable character, they’re just evil and irredeemable, therefore do not need to be heard or understood. But for our own or ourselves we tend to blame only the circumstances and call it a mistake—one of those forgivable offenses. The reverse is to never make excuses for our own while also showing grace to those who offend us.

When someone cuts us off in traffic is it because they are a terrible driver? Or did they just have a bad moment? Or if we do the same, is it truly just an isolated incident or is our confirmation bias simply forgetting all of those times we transgressed with an “oops, sorry!” Reversing our fundamental attribution error is simply to apply grace we give to ourselves to others. It is, at the very least, to apply the same standard we do for ourselves as we do to others.

When a person of our own tribe does some kind of horrific deed, do we dismiss this as not representing us as a whole? Maybe we justify it? When the US Navy shot down Iran Air Flight 655 flying a routine route over the Strait of Hormuz, back in 1988, and killed all 290 on board—the US didn’t even apologize and, adding insult to injury, gave medals to the crew that did it! That is tribalism and is how fundamental attribution error works. If Iran did the same the US population would be calling for our military to turn the whole country into a smoldering ruin.

But the Gospel of Jesus Christ starts with a call for repentance. Repentance being an inward turn where we identify and confess our own faults rather than hide them behind rationalization or claims that our hand was forced by the other side. And, finally, after this deep introspection, we show the fruits of a changed spirit by showing the grace we have been shown to even those who we feel are most underserving. A true Christian will strive to love their worst enemies while also holding their own to a high standard.

If we want forgiveness of our sins we must show mercy and forgive others.

Evangeli-cons want all grace for themselves and yet give none to the enemies of their ‘Christian’ empire. They don’t want sins of some in their midst to count against them, they will deny the inconvenient violence of those on their side politically, but then make the whole left or all of Islam responsible for everything ever done by one of their own. It is a tribal ethic that has nothing to do with a Jesus of repentance. Or a spirit of grace to others that exists in those who understand their place before God.

The Pendulum Swings: Charlie Kirk and the Turning Point of a Nation

Watching my son’s football game, it felt as if there was an inflection point. The game got off to a rocky start—their offense stumbled on the first drive, the defense gave up a score, and that was the story of the first half. But in the second half, the game’s momentum changed—the defense sparked a three-and-out, their offense finally got on the board, and it was a whole new game. Even luck tilted in their favor, unlike the first half.

So what happened?

How does a team that gave up eight points rally to score fourteen in a comeback?

An inflection point is a change where it feels as if a giant pendulum has swung, reached a peak in one direction, and shifted to a new or opposite course. The momentum shift may become clear only afterward, but often it’s something detectable in the air—an event or palpable shift in attitude that changes the entire complexion. In the game, it could’ve been a small adjustment by the coaches or simply an opportunity to reflect on mistakes and correct them. It could be that the ball broke in the right direction, a matter of probabilities, with the change mostly an illusion. But football is an emotional sport, and even dumb luck can inspire better play from everyone.

We also witnessed a similar shift during the presidential election. Biden was apparently leading in the polls (if such things are to be believed), and then Butler happened. The event came after the disastrous first presidential debate, where Biden clearly was not as advertised, yet it was the image of defiance—“fight, fight, fight”—that sealed the deal. Elon Musk saw this as reason to put his full weight behind Trump, and with a few McDonald’s drive-through moments and photo ops with garbage trucks, the greatest upset win since 2016 was complete.

Love him or loath him, Butler should have been a warning shot for the left—trying to kill your political opposition only makes them stronger and Trump won with a younger browner vote.

The paragraphs above were written before the murder of Charlie Kirk. Over the past few days, he went from the “prove me wrong” guy debating college kids to the center of a national debate. Since his death, there has been a groundswell of support. As those on the left reveal themselves through celebrations of his death and mockery, Kirk’s Turning Point organization has been flooded with 54,000 requests for new chapters at high schools and colleges. His death is a catalyst, much like the two assassination attempts against Trump, and a potential inflection point in the national conversation.

Before the U.S. Civil War officially began, there was an early attempt to free the slaves. John Brown, an evangelical Christian, believed he was on a mission from God to end slavery in the U.S. and led an insurrection that ended with a raid on a federal armory at Harpers Ferry in October 1859. Even before this, the issue of legal slavery had resulted in violent confrontations. In 1837, the abolitionist Elijah Parish Lovejoy was shot while facing down a mob of pro-slavery vandals who were attempting to destroy his printing press. This event sent shockwaves through the U.S. and galvanized John Brown to publicly declare:

“Here, before God, in the presence of these witnesses, from this time, I consecrate my life to the destruction of slavery.”

John Brown fired the opening shots of civil war, his fierce opposition to slavery inspired by the murder of abolitionist Elijah Parish Lovejoy.

As a writer, I do not create the sentiment of my audience. I merely put into words what other people are thinking or help them organize their thoughts. In other words, if it resonates, it is only because I’ve stated something they’ve already noticed. It also emboldens—when people realize they are not alone in what they see—which is how regimes fall. When people know that others share their understanding and are given a means to articulate it, all it takes is a little push to turn popular sentiment into decisive action.

Synchronicity is one way to describe this. I have often observed many of my friends—likely tuned into similar sources and sharing the same basic assumptions—simultaneously reach an identical conclusion in response to events.

The assassination of Kirk is a moment that galvanizes. It has starkly illustrated how far apart the two partisan sides have become. Some celebrate the murder, spewing vile hatred for a man who was truly a moderate with views similar to those of many Americans. Others are rightly appalled, realizing there is no reasoning or unity with those who believe disagreement deserves a death sentence—that Kirk deserved the bullet.

In a civil society, matters can be debated. If a person says things we don’t like, we still honor their human rights and show respect despite disagreement. But to those on the far left, a statement of fact or an opinion they hate is declared “hate speech,” and saying it out loud constitutes a crime of “spreading hate” that deserves death. This is not an embellishment—a direct quote: “Let this be a lesson to all those conservative freaks, all those weirdos… you’re next in line.” This is a threat we must take seriously when the other side laughs and mocks Kirk’s death—they are not like us.

This is an inflection point, one of those culminating moments where conservatives are independently reaching the same conclusion, and a movement can become galvanized. It will arm Trump to crack down on Antifa and the left-wing in ways he could not have before, with the critical mass of public support he needs.

Freedom of speech doesn’t mean people must associate with you. I’ve never seen the ‘right’ react with such energy before.

In reality, Charlie Kirk wasn’t an extremist leading anything; he represented the quiet majority who are still able to appreciate the difference between men and women and who want laws applied equally for the protection of all Americans—not favoritism or special preferences for some based on identity or political ideology. They are Charlie. He did not radicalize anyone. All he did was try to explain his perspective and articulate what many believe. But he will now be a rallying cry—like the death of Lovejoy that led to John Brown’s vow—that point in a conflict where the tolerance has been exhausted and it is necessary for the sane to make a stand.

Even for me, as someone who attempts to stake out a position independent of both popular sides, I must go with the side least likely to kill me as a default. There’s nothing I share in common with those who are gleeful and cracking jokes about a man deliberately killed in front of his fans, wife, and young daughters. Cheering for domestic terrorism cannot be tolerated. The backlash against those who couldn’t show civility even after a man’s murder will be a turning point, like the momentum shift in a football game—the people are done playing nice with these monsters.

State of Hasbara: Unveiling Opportunism in the Crises of 9/11, Iraq, and October 7th

I’m not a big conspiracy theory guy.

What I mean by that is that I don’t see everything as orchestrated or part of a secret global plot. I believe accidents can happen and that people can do terrible things unaided or completely of their own volition. But, all that said, I also believe that the rule “never let a crisis go to waste” is not an invention of Rahm Emanuel.

Political opportunism is rampant on all sides. And then there’s the just plain letting something bad happen to use for advancing agenda.

What I’m about to detail is all verifiable facts and not conjecture. I’m just going to lay it out then let you reach your own reasonable conclusions. I’ll also prime this topic with a response to 9/11 that has made less sense in retrospect and that is the invasion of Iraq that followed. Saddam Hussain was not at all involved in the attacks. The war cost the US trillions of dollars, 4,419 Americans lost their lives, 31,993 wounded, and that is not to mention the Iraqi losses. We traded that much blood and treasure for claims of there being WMDs—which our government knew were mostly or completely destroyed.

So what was the actual reason for regime change in Iraq?

But, before we answer, let’s get to some of the facts on 9/11. And, again, I’ll stick only to what is verified and not speculate beyond what is very easily corroborated with videos and news articles from the time. This is all things known according to official records, eyewitness accounts, and confessions on foreign television.

While the rest of the country watched 9/11 unfold in horror, five men were seen filming the burning World Trade Center towers from a white van, they were seen high-fiving, and appearing jovially celebratory from the New Jersey side. Their behavior was so totally alarming, and in contrast to what one may expect seeing the US under attack and with people literally being forced to jump to their deaths, that a concerned citizen reported it to authorities.

Trump said Muslims were celebrating in Jersey City. Not true. What he should have said is Mossad.

Later in the day the van was stopped by the police and these five men, Sivan Kurzberg, Paul Kurzberg, Yaron Shmuel, Oded Ellner, and Omer Marmari—dubbed the “Dancing Israelis”—were arrested.

These Israeli men were employed by Urban Moving Systems, a company that was also owned by Israeli national, Dominik Suter, and the men possessed items like $4,700 in cash stuffed in a sock, they carried multiple foreign passports, maps highlighting New York City, and a box cutter like those used in the 9/11 hijackings, further FBI searches of this firm’s Weehawken offices uncovered a fraudulent operation with minimal evidence that it was a legitimate business. Add to it, 16 seized computers, and reports of anti-American sentiment among staff, including boasts about subverting U.S. media. Suter’s abrupt flight to Israel just before a second FBI interview, abandoning the premises with client property and phones left behind, only amplified suspicions.

Perhaps most damningly, in a 2001 Israeli TV interview on LaHadashot, one of the five men, Oded Ellner, chillingly stated they were placed in the U.S. specifically “to document the event,” a strange phrasing implying their prior awareness of the impending attacks. Which the FBI could not conclusively prove or disprove despite the months of detention and polygraphs, such led to the speculation—backed by a 2002 Forward report citing U.S. officials—that at least two of the five Israelis were Mossad operatives using the firm as a front. And officially to keep tabs on Arab extremists. I’ll let you judge if that is just a cover story or the truth.

Why we would ever believe him again, after the Iraq WMD lie…

Enter Benjamin Netanyahu. The day after the attacks, he was quoted in the NY Times as saying “it was very good” before he corrected himself and explained what he meant is that it would “generate immediate sympathy” that would benefit Israel. And it was a year to the day after this that he was pitching a war with Iraq to Congress, calling himself an “expert witness” and warning the legislative body of something that sounds so awfully familiar:

“There is no question whatsoever that Saddam is seeking, is working, is advancing towards the development of nuclear weapons—no question whatsoever.”

Netanyahu continued his case:

“If you take out Saddam, Saddam’s regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region.”

There was zero evidence found to support Netanyahu’s dire warnings about WMDs. I will let you decide if regime change in Iraq was an amazing success that has only led to peace and prosperity for the region. But 9/11 was used as an excuse to invade Iraq and Netanyahu was cheering this on—much like the Dancing Israelis. None of this says for certain that Mossad had foreknowledge or withheld vital intelligence so the attacks could continue and draw the US into Israel’s conflicts. But we did spend trillions for a war that did absolutely nothing to advance our national security interests.

Many of these men may do it all over again, but would they if they knew what they were actually fighting for?

And then there’s October 7th. Netanyahu has called this Israel’s 9/11 and maybe this an admission. Recently, before his untimely death, Charlie Kirk made an observation in a discussion with Patrick Bet-David about the incredible security perimeter around Gaza and surveillance, expressing disbelief that it could be breeched and openly pondering if an order given to stand down. This, wasn’t just speculation. Israeli intelligence had the Hamas incursion plan a full year before and didn’t act, according to the New York Times, and on the night of the attacks former IDF guards have said they were told not to do their routine patrols.

So was the terrorist attack on 9/11 allowed to happen to generate sympathy to later be exploited to further Netanyahu’s agenda as far as Iraq? And as an order given to stand down on October 7th, likewise, benefits the ultimate aim of Likud which is written in the original 1977 party platform, “between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.” Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, the first Israeli Prime Minister born in what had been called Mandatory Palestine, was assassinated by a radical Zionist settler for seeking a peaceful resolution.

Maybe some see terrorists. I see a mother and a child, their lives as important as any other.

Israel brazenly attacked the USS Liberty for reasons never appropriately explained. The Lavon Affair exposes a level of deception and indifference to civilian casualties that shocked the international community—only surpassed in Gaza now the child amputee capital of the world with bombs paid for by the US taxpayers. Do we really need to speculate—with all of the facts above—if the Netanyahu regime is willing to sacrifice a few American lives in pursuit of their regional or political ambitions? With calculus as cold is there any limiting factor?

The recurring exploitation of crises like 9/11 and October 7th, paired with a history of deceptive hasbara, casts doubt on the credibility of official explanations, urging us to further scrutinize the manipulative tactics of those who may prioritize self-serving agendas over truth.

From False Flags to Fortress Minds: The Politics of Fear

We don’t see things as they are, we see them as we are.
Anaïs Nin

In today’s world, discerning what is real from what is manufactured is a formidable challenge. Suspicion abounds, particularly among the political right, that groups like Patriot Front—openly fascist—are not grassroots movements but rather orchestrated operations, possibly by federal agencies. The MAGA base can’t even spell the word “fascism” let alone embrace it as a guiding philosophy. Yet, this suspicion fuels the leftist “anti-fascism” narrative, which is wielded as a justification for aggressive tactics and bullying.

Fear is a potent tool for control, and political operatives exploit it to manipulate public sentiment. When voter turnout wanes in critical demographics, staged provocations—such as groups wielding tiki torches to “Unite the Right”—can galvanize a larger, more powerful group into action. These events often attract a few genuine extremists, but their true purpose is to provoke a broader reaction.

This strategy mirrors the “pony motor” in early diesel engines, where a smaller gasoline engine was used to heat and start the larger one. Similarly, false flag operations—whether orchestrated or permitted—serve as catalysts for sweeping agendas, such as justifying military invasions of countries or enacting restrictive laws. While I’m not convinced that 9/11 was a government-orchestrated plot, evidence suggests some knew in advance and that it was exploited to advance a wishlist of wars against unrelated nations and to pass laws that would not have prevented the attack. This reflects the mechanics of how to “manufacture consent” in our modern democracies—where fear is leveraged to unify and control populations.

The creation of a common enemy is a time-tested method for fostering unity. During the Cold War, the specter of communism was used to rally the public. After the Soviet Union’s collapse, Islamic terrorism became the new focal point. The 9/11 attacks, likely executed in part by Osama bin Laden’s organization, were real but were exploited to amplify fear. Domestically, this pattern persists: Democrats emphasize the threat of right-wing extremism, while Republicans fixate on “wokeism” and DEI initiatives. These are deliberate strategies, rallying points designed to consolidate support. Even more effective is provoking hatred from opponents—forcing one’s base to fight for survival and justifying the consolidation of power.

What do you think the point of The Handmaid’s Tale really is?

We Create Our Own Enemies

This dynamic extends beyond politics into cultural and religious identities. Jewish identity, for example, is partly shaped by what’s known as “Masada syndrome,” a collective memory of the Jewish defenders at Masada in Roman Judea (later renamed Syria Palaestina in 135 CE), who chose suicide over captivity. This narrative of the siege mentality is reinforced during the Passover celebration with texts proclaiming to the faithful, “In every generation, they rise up against us to destroy us.” Such beliefs foster an “us against the world” mentality, where hatred is seen as inevitable, reinforcing group cohesion.

Similarly, in the Anabaptist tradition that I grew up in, the reading of Martyrs Mirror cultivates a persecution complex. Likewise, Kanye West’s controversial remark about slavery—“When you hear about slavery for 400 years… that sounds like a choice”—touches on a deeper truth about locus of control. As my mother would say, “You can’t stop a bird from landing on your head, but you can stop it from building a nest.” Paranoia and defensiveness can alienate others or invite their suspicion, while believing you’re inherently excluded can lead to antisocial or even criminal behavior. It’s as if we seek to validate the fears that define our identity.

This pattern is evident in contemporary conflicts. Hamas, for instance, was probably willing to sacrifice innocent lives in Gaza to highlight the Palestinian plight—anticipating Israel’s brutal and disproportionate response. Yet, why does Israel fall into this trap? One possibility is that it aligns with certain political goals. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, facing corruption charges, may benefit from war as a distraction. The Likud party’s vision of a Greater Israel—encompassing Palestinian territories, Jordan, and parts of Saudi Arabia and Egypt—could also be a factor. Some speculate this violence is a deliberate provocation to unify Jews through fear, and possibly tied to messianic expectations.

Netanyahu is a Revisionist Zionist, this is their long-term plan.

This self-fulfilling prophecy is reflected in online discussions, such as an Israeli subreddit where users lament being hated globally. They attribute this to irrational antisemitism, dismissing the role of the Israel Defense Forces’ actions, such as killing children, which fuel international outrage. This mindset—“They’ll hate us regardless, so we might as well give them a reason”—makes them vulnerable to exploitation by corrupt leaders like Netanyahu.

Breaking the Fear and Control Cycle

The fear of the Lord is a fountain of life, that one may turn away from the snares of death.
Proverbs 14:27 ESV

We must guard against siege mentalities like Masada syndrome. By convincing ourselves that the world is inherently against us, we risk acting in ways that bring about the very persecution we fear. Focusing on external threats to define our identity can lead us to become what we dread, fulfilling a prophecy of our own making due to our own unacceptable actions.

Breaking this cycle requires rejecting fear-based narratives and fostering a sense of agency over our own actions and beliefs.

To guard against exploitation, we must shift our focus from the fear of man to the fear of God.

Human fears—stoked by manufactured enemies and self-fulfilling prophecies—keep us trapped in cycles of division and control. A reverent fear of a perfect moral agent beyond us offers a higher perspective, grounding us in principles of justice, compassion, and accountability. By prioritizing a divine wisdom earthly manipulation, we become less susceptible to the provocative tactics of those who thrive on our fear, fostering a resilience that unites rather than divides. Establishment of this spiritual foundation empowers us to reject their deadly paranoia and act with clarity, so we break free from those divisive narratives that political systems use exploit to consolidate power.

The Greater Good Fallacy: Morality Without Excuses

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.

Israel’s Legacy of Terrorism and the Systematic Sabotage of Palestinian Statehood

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a tangled web of hypocrisy and intrigue where Israel, under Likud regime and Benjamin Netanyahu’s rule, wields the specter of “Palestinian terrorism” as a means of denying Palestinian statehood—while ignoring its own history of terror and ongoing policies that fuel violence in response.

The narrative that a Palestinian state would empower terrorists is a deliberate distortion, rooted in Israel’s refusal to relinquish control over the West Bank and Gaza. Far from being a security necessity, this stance masks a calculated campaign to completely annex Palestinian lands, perpetuated through their decades of occupation, settler violence, and even complicity in bolstering Hamas to fracture Palestinian unity. Israel’s own terrorist origins, its role in fostering extremism, and its relentless aggression against neighbors demand a reckoning: Palestinian sovereignty, backed by international intervention, is the only path to dismantle this cycle of oppression and hold Israel’s rogue regime accountable.

The framing of this conflict as having started on October 7th and only addressing the Palestinian response to Israeli abuses, is to deny the reality of the situation: This all started with a massive migration from Europe—followed thereafter by the terror campaign of Zionist gangs that would eventually be incorporated into an Israeli state.

We’re told we can’t reward terror, but that is the only reason why Israel exists and precisely what has inspired the Palestinian resistance.

Israel’s Terrorist Foundations and the Double Standard

Israel’s establishment in 1948 was forged through brutal acts of terrorism by Zionist militias, a fact conveniently erased from the narrative of those condemning Palestinian resistance. Groups like the Irgun and Lehi orchestrated atrocities such as the 1946 King David Hotel bombing—which killed 91 people, and the 1948 Deir Yassin massacre—where over 100 Palestinians were slaughtered, and catalyzing the Nakba—the ethnic cleansing of 711,000 Palestinians. These acts, branded terrorism by the British and Arabs, were pivotal in securing Israel’s statehood, endorsed by the 1947 UN Partition Plan despite Arab opposition. Yet, when Palestinians resist occupation, their actions are demonized to justify denying them the same right to self-determination. This glaring double standard exposes Israel’s complete moral bankruptcy: Zionist terror was a stepping stone to statehood, but Palestinian resistance against illegal occupation is weaponized to perpetuate statelessness.

We don’t remember April 9th, 1948, when Zionist settler militias (that later were incorporated into the IDF) murdered a village of indigenous Palestinian people. And probably because it was so soon eclipsed by other Zionist atrocities.

Israel’s Iron Grip on Palestinian Territories

Since seizing the West Bank and Gaza in 1967, Israel has enforced a brutal occupation designed to strangle Palestinian aspirations. The West Bank is carved up by over 400,000 settlers in Area C—which comprises 60% of the territory—with illegal settlement expansion accelerating under Netanyahu’s government. And finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich’s recent call for “sovereignty” over the West Bank lays bare an annexationist agenda. In Gaza, a suffocating blockade since 2007 has trapped 2 million people, with 90% displaced at some point in 2024 due to IDF operations that razed civilian infrastructure. Settler violence in the West Bank has surged, with 2,848 attacks recorded between October 2023 and May 2025, often aided and abetted by Israeli forces. These are not defensive measures but a deliberate strategy of aggression to erase Palestinian claims to their land—rendering a viable state impossible.

Divide and steal has been the plan from day one. The Likud party knew their original “between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty” platform would be impossible all at once—their final solution plan would require the right opportunities over time.

October 7: A Pretext for Escalated Aggression

Israel’s fixation on Hamas’s October 7, 2023, attack, which killed 1,200 Israelis (many by the IDF “friendly fire” or even intentionally) and took 253 hostages, serves as a convenient pretext to justify genocidal operations in Gaza, where over 60,000 Palestinians have been killed. This selective outrage ignores a century of Palestinian suffering: the Nakba, decades of occupation, and a blockade that had turned Gaza into an open-air prison. The First and Second Intifadas were uprisings against this oppression—met with Israel’s disproportionate violence. By framing October 7 as the conflict’s defining moment, Israel deflects from its own role in perpetuating the conditions that breed resistance. Smotrich’s annexationist rhetoric and the IDF’s devastation of Gaza reveal October 7 as a manufactured justification for territorial conquest, not a standalone tragedy.

You don’t need to be a military expert to know this is damage in keeping with small arms like what Hamas employs. It looks more like what one would expect from an attack helicopter or tank.

Likud’s Complicity in Terrorism: The Hamas Connection

Far from being a mere victim of Hamas, Israel’s Likud-led government has actively propped up the group to sabotage Palestinian statehood. In 2019, Netanyahu told Likud members, “anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas.”

Since 2018, Israel has greenlit Qatari funds to Hamas, ostensibly for humanitarian aid but effectively to keep Gaza under Hamas’s control and prevent a unified Palestinian front with the Palestinian Authority. This cynical strategy ensures a divided enemy, stalling peace talks and justifying Israel’s refusal to negotiate. By bankrolling Hamas, Likud has fueled the very terrorism it decries, exposing its duplicity in undermining a two-state solution.

Netanyahu paraded with a coffin and a noose shortly before his Israeli rival was killed by a Likud inspired terrorist.

The 1995 assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who pursued peace through the Oslo Accords, further unmasks Likud’s extremist ties. While not directly responsible, Netanyahu’s incendiary rhetoric—joining protests where Rabin was branded a traitor and involving a coffin—fueled the climate that led to his murder by a right-wing zealot. This act derailed Oslo’s promise of Palestinian statehood, empowering Likud’s hardline agenda and cementing its legacy of sabotaging peace through violence and incitement.

Palestinian Sovereignty: A Counter to Israel’s Terrorism

Palestinian statehood is not a concession to terrorism but a necessary antidote to Israel’s state-sponsored aggression. This hope would undermine any lingering support for Hamas in Palestinian territories. People support violent solutions when they feel they’re left with no other options. Finally recognizing a Palestinian right to self-determination and granting them real protection from a decades long onslaught will help disarm the conflict. End the oppression and it will end the reason for resistance.

This kind of destruction has nothing to do with Hamas and everything to do with making the land inhabitable for the rightful owners.

The 2024 UN General Assembly, backed by Saudi Arabia and Norway, reaffirmed support for a two-state solution based on 1967 borders, a vision the Palestinian Authority endorses. Yet, Israel’s rejection, coupled with Hamas’s refusal to fully recognize Israel, underscores the need for some international intervention. Deploying neutral peacekeepers, modeled on the UN Interim Force in Lebanon, could help protect Palestinians from IDF terrorism and settler violence while enabling governance free from Israel’s stranglehold. The Zionist opposition to such measures, viewing them as threats to their control, only highlights intent to perpetuate occupation.

Sanctions must target Israel’s rogue regime to curb its terrorist policies. Germany’s 2024 arms sale suspension and sanctions on ministers like Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir for backing settler violence are steps forward. The International Criminal Court’s 2024 arrest warrants for both Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant for war crimes in Gaza signal a growing demand for accountability. Broad sanctions, though resisted by the US, could pressure Israel to dismantle settlements and end the blockade, forcing compliance with international law.

Conclusion: Holding Israel’s Terrorist Regime Accountable

Israel’s Likud-led regime, under Netanyahu, has woven a tapestry of terrorism and manipulation to thwart Palestinian statehood. From its origins in Zionist militias’ violence to its current policies of occupation, continual settlement expansion, and complicity with Hamas, the Zionist state has systematically denied Palestinians their right to self-determination. The narrative of Palestinian terrorism is a smokescreen, used to deflect from Israel’s own terrorist legacy and ongoing acts of aggression. October 7 was not an isolated act but a consequence of decades of oppression, exploited to justify further land grabs.

International intervention, both peacekeepers and sanctions are steps to dismantle this cycle of violence, ensuring Palestinian sovereignty and holding Israel’s extremist regime accountable for its crimes. Only by confronting Israel’s terrorism can a just peace, rooted in a two-state solution, be achieved. The whole region would change if the Zionist regime were forced to “defend” without being so offensive—this is the only path for an Israel that survives the test of time.

	radre4m on Shifting Sands of Sacred: How…
	Joel on The End of the Run
	Adriana McAtee on A Conservative Mennonite and F…
	Joel on By Way of Deception
	Michael on By Way of Deception

Irregular Ideation

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." Albert Einstein

war