The Elephant in the Room

You know the illustration of a group of blind men describing an elephant?

With one of them holding the leg and describing it as the trunk of a tree, another the tail and thinking it is a rope, etc.?

It is a good analogy for the larger conspiracy nobody can explain.

We all can agree that there’s something wrong with the world, and yet we can never agree on exactly what it is. Those of the Republican rank and file, despite being an easy sell on the biggest of wastes called the Pentagon, have generally seen government as the real problem—along with rules that apply to them and the people who don’t speak English. And those Democrats—of course. Democrats, on the other hand, will blame those big corporations and billionaires for their woes, the “uneducated,” and unborn babies—which all stand in the way of a life of ease. And they blame Republicans. I would say that both are right to a degree. It is actually that natural collusion of the political and economic that they see a different side of—namely, that government has always sent us to die overseas on behalf of bankers and big business. Monetary wealth is transferable—so much more transferable than some amorphous national ideals—and politicians are a class that can be easily bought.

Maybe we all are?

I am reminded of a local fight against a new data center where the leader of the protest went silent right around the time the buyout cash was being offered.

We will stand on principle—until we don’t.

Money or, rather, the love of it, with the power it represents, is the root of all kinds of evil.

The above would describe half of the conspiracy.

The other half of it is those who never had to be bought to betray us all. From growing up in a conservative Mennonite community—and having been a religious member for most of my life—there’s an attitude that comes with the notion of “not being ‘of the world’” which is probably not what Jesus ever intended. I am talking about a sneering at or contempt for the civil authority. We didn’t say it—even preached the opposite—and yet there is the very strong undercurrent of “what business does some heathen have in telling me how to live my life?” I’m fairly certain—given the admonition of Romans 13—that separation is more about being apart from vices of the world rather than in judgment of those who are given the power of the sword or the civil authorities. This defiance against power is a good and bad thing. It can be good when we are standing on a moral high ground and for truth—not when it is a special exemption from accountability to our neighbors.

So where am I going with all this?

Who doesn’t need to betray us because they never were us?

There’s another group of individuals that’s a lot like Mennonites or Amish, and not fully invested in the same civilizational project or greater good. Where, in theory, Christian separatists are never supposed to screw you over in business and must value all human life, this is not a disposition that is shared universally and by every community of faith or culture.

There are some who believe that people outside of the “tribe” are little more than a resource to exploit. And their religious traditions allows or even encourages this perspective. If you look at the Biblical Old Testament, and take note of the bloodbath it was before Christ, maybe you would also be shouting, “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!” Jesus was the watershed moment of Jewish tradition—he claimed to be the complete fulfillment of everything promised to them since the time of Abraham. Some embraced his message and became known as Christians and many others rejected his message, choosing their own “chosenness” over a life of repentance, humility, and self-sacrificial love—that “way of the cross” which was embodied by Jesus as an example for all.

There are those who are “Biblical” yet completely incompatible with a Christian worldview. And a few of their number have worked tirelessly to, this time around, finally defeat Rome. Modern Judaism and, in particular, the Zionist ideology within this sect of those who rejected Christ, is not just aloof like contemporary Anabaptists. No, it has an ax to grind with Western civilization as a whole and the disgusting “blasphemy” of the divine claims of one of their own.

In Talmudic tradition Jesus basically got what he deserved, currently boils in a pot of excrement, and is definitely not an example to follow. The Noahide prescription for saying “Jesus is Lord” is decapitation. This is why adherent Talmudists have zero interest in protecting those Christian communities that have been in the Holy Lands for centuries. They also take personally being defeated by the European pagans two centuries ago. Jesus was put to death on behalf of the Sanhedrin or Jewish High Council who claimed this was necessary to defend their nation. Where the mainline of Islam still considers Christians and Jews to simply be “people of the book,” this sentiment of tolerance is not part of Talmudic Judaism.

Furthermore, Christianity, if applied, pushes back against this tribal, primitive, “if you kill one of ours we kill ten of yours” mentality—Old Testament religion does not.

Before I go any further it is important to say that this isn’t a diagnosis of a whole ethnic or identity group. I firmly believe that most Jews—just like most Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists—are good people and should be judged as individuals. What I’m addressing is ideology, not individuals. I see my Jewish elementary school teacher in a far different light from a Benjamin Netanyahu—in the same way I can distinguish between Amish and Lutherans.

So as a starting point I won’t assume anything—in individuals is the behavioral expression that matters to me.

But that said, there is a kind of tribal dynamic or cultural influence that is at work and with this a few common points of failure. Being taught a moral and ethical system is similar to sharing genetics. For example, Ashkenazi Jews (much like Amish and Mennonites)—because they are so isolated from the greater gene pool—present a very unique opportunity for studying genetic disorders.

The Supremacist Disease

Sickle cell anemia is an issue for only some Africans—and it isn’t racist or an accusation against all to acknowledge this.

Likewise, it isn’t “anti-Semitic” to call out Zionism and to understand that the “goyim” slur (as it was used in the Jeffrey Epstein emails) reflects the toxic stench of ethno-supremacism—which is incompatible with an “all men are created equal” ethic. If anti-goyism is the trait, then Zionism is the ultimate disease. And this is an ailment that stems from a toxic brew of a theological error mixed with the pre-existing human condition. The end product is a kind of psychopathy and lack of self-awareness unequaled on the planet. Unlike Christianity that it is better to serve than to be served—there are rabbis who say this:

In Israel, death has no dominion over them… With gentiles, it will be like any person—they need to die, but [God] will give them longevity. Why? Imagine that one’s donkey would die, they’d lose their money.“This is his servant… That’s why he gets a long life, to work well for this Jew.”“Why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat… That is why gentiles were created.
Rabbi Ovadia Yosef

Translation: If you’re not Jewish then you’re no different from cattle or a draft animal. That’s what he was teaching Israelis. Little wonder why Israeli tourists have gained a reputation for being entitled jerks. It explains why IDF soldiers laugh about the Palestinian children they’ve killed.

Two ethno-supremacists enjoy a moment together.

They are basically the Jewish version of Nazis or the KKK and totally anti-Christ and evil. The best you can be to Jewish supremacists is basically their prized horse. Work is for us, leisure for them, and if you don’t perform to the standard?

Well, what does a farmer do if his cow doesn’t produce?

This idea that an honest day’s work is below the Jew seems reflected in the messages that Epstein and Jewish friends exchanged:

This is the way the Jew make money.. and made a fortune in the past ten years„ selling short the shipping futures‚ let the goyim deal in the real world.

This right here hits on something of my own values. Remember the one time Jesus was especially animated? Him driving out those money changers from the temple courtyard, overturning their tables in a righteous fury—because they were taking advantage of the poor hard-working people. There are those ways of getting rich without ever adding any value. It might not legally be theft, but it does prey on those who earn every dime they got, and is unethical from the perspective of the New Testament writers. Usury, filthy lucre, charging interest and shameful, dishonest, or dishonorable financial gain. I’ve always had a special place in my heart for the blue-collar worker and probably as a part of my own cultural upbringing—a culture built off the religion of Christ—the cornerstone that was rejected by those who wanted only to be served.

And then there’s the elitism represented by the publicist Peggy Siegal who asked Jeffrey Epstein if an event at his New York mansion would be a “100% JEW NIGHT,” and to which the pedophile blackmailer answered: “No, goyim in abundance – jpmorgan execs brilliant WASPs.”

To deal with her comment about non-Jews he entices her with: They’re smart and rich.

Favoritism is another one of those things that was condemned by Jewish leaders of the early Christian church:

My brothers and sisters, believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ must not show favoritism. Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in filthy old clothes also comes in. If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, “Here’s a good seat for you,” but say to the poor man, “You stand there” or “Sit on the floor by my feet,” have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?
James 2:3-5

Judgment based on appearance is natural, as is the preference for those who might be able to give us something; this is favoritism and corrupts our institutions. The direction of the West has been equality—not in some absolute way—as far as individual rights or similar access to economic opportunities. But those of the Epstein-class have no qualms about elitism; they don’t subscribe to Christian thought—those of the Jewish contingent of this Zionist club are primed for this: It is their chosenness, the divine destiny granted to them by their superior genetics, a narcissistic self-love, and all represents the core of a disease that has overtaken our top tier.

Corruption of Wealthy Widows

After this, Jesus traveled about from one town and village to another, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God. The Twelve were with him, and also some women who had been cured of evil spirits and diseases: Mary (called Magdalene) from whom seven demons had come out; Joanna the wife of Chuza, the manager of Herod’s household; Susanna; and many others. These women were helping to support them out of their own means.
(Luke 8:1-3 NIV)

Jesus was financially supported by women. He preached the good news on their dime. And the anti-Christ, seeking a false Messiah, is supported in a similar way.

To understand why Trump has done Israel’s bidding look no further than the donation of $250,000,000 by Miriam Adelson. My uncle, from Canada, who leans left, warned me of how Trump was owned by billionaires. It is the part he left out, however, that mattered most. Of course big money buys influence—both parties have their wealthy patrons backing them. But the details matter. This woman who bankrolled Trump is the Israel-first widow of Sheldon Adelson—a man who made his billions by peddling vice.

Gambling is addictive and the Adelsons the type who cash in on human weakness. The idea of gaining enormous wealth entices—this is an exploitable bug in our system. The house always wins in this stacked game. When asked about her loyalties it was fairly clear that it wasn’t with the country that created her fortune—it was with an ethno-supremacist colony. So this woman, who became wealthy creating an addiction to a losing proposition, bought the service of Trump using the money of the exploited. This, simply put, is just corruption upon corruption upon corruption—money taken from working poor Americans to use to influence politicians to send their children to die for the Zionist regime. An ill-gotten fortune used to shape a foreign policy that demands that U.S. treasure be spent bombing school girls in the country of Iran—all because Iran’s principled government stands in the way of their ethnic cleansing of Gaza.

We’re not just being deceived; we’re being totally robbed blind by people who have no investment in the American project besides a tax farm and a population to exploit. If you see who sits atop the entertainment or vice system a clear pattern emerges. From pro sports to Hollywood, social media and the adult entertainment industry, there’s a totally disproportionate representation. If you look at Pornhub, for example, it just so happens to be owned by Ethical Capital Partners and Solomon Friedman—an ordained Orthodox Jewish rabbi. OnlyFans was owned (until his death) by Leonid Radvinsky, a Ukrainian-born American who donated millions to the pro-Israel lobby, AIPAC. And this list goes on and on. It’s a matter of moral alignment, not religious or ethnic identities. There was a time when vices stayed in Las Vegas and the seedy side of town—now they have put it in our pockets where resistance is about as likely as ceasing to doomscroll.

All of this, like the Federal Reserve system, is a legal exploitation. But it goes against the public good. An ethical businessman or politician is like a good parent or teacher—in that they would never put something bad or financially ruinous and morally corrosive right in front of our most vulnerable people. Oh, I know, if they didn’t do it someone else would, right?

There’s no excuse for this.

But being an intermediary who does the things that good people of society would not do doesn’t make you a victim when the connection is pointed out. Bluntly, there are some not invested in our good because they’re truly not one of us and only see us in terms of opportunities for exploitation. Our politicians, and most especially Trump, are owned by a group of wealthy elites invested in us the same way Israel is in Palestinians—in that we are only useful alive to them so long as they are served by us.

For capitalism to work you need the people with capital to be loyal to the country and invest in the betterment of their neighbors. Take a dive into a rabbit hole and see how the Sassoon family got filthy rich by keeping the Chinese supplied with highly addictive opium. They basically ruined a nation for their own profit and used the power of the British military to humiliate the Chinese trying to stop the flow of the drug. Say what you will about China, but they’ve done very well since driving the money changers out. They have made sure the commerce in China serves the people of China and not only this very small group of foreigners and colonial elites.

The Elephant in the Room

“It’s a big club, and you ain’t in it. You and I are not in the big club.” (George Carlin)

Since the 1970s the top 1% has gone from holding 22% of the nation’s wealth to 31.7% and that is a trend that has only accelerated since the Covid shutdowns of 2020. Elites said “we’re all in this together” in the height of the pandemic. But Amazon was having record profits while Mom-and-Pop were not allowed to be open. As Gavin Newsom and a long list of other politicians had continued to party in private, events like weddings and school graduations were canceled for us. It is abundantly clear and no matter who they say that they represent; They’re working for themselves, not working for us.

Money and power, concentrated into a few hands, particularly the hands of those with a foreign agenda that does not consider the welfare of the native population, acts like a conspiracy because it practically is one. No, it is not a Jewish conspiracy, it isn’t simply corporate greed or corrupt politicians, and certainly didn’t start with Trump; this is just how corrupt birds of a feather always flock together. Grifters, conmen, an ethnic group taught from little on up that they’re superior and entitled, those who will short an entire economy and are willing to destroy the life work of others for gain, they often do team up. It’s love of money, wealth without work, and people who are not truly invested in the good of the nation they’re in, that’s the big elephant in room.

Many can see parts of the creature—a trunk, the ears, the tail—they blame billionaires, or the migrants, the symptoms, but fail to ever comprehend the marriage of political power and banking, vice and exploitation industry—people all invested in themselves or some foreign interest rather than the whole. This describes the Zionist “AIPAC” lobby—as well as billionaires, like Sam Altman (OpenAI) or Peter Thiel (PayPal and Palantir), who have built their tremendous wealth on our backs and then would bug out and flee to another country rather than make a home stand. It is a class of those who see themselves as a god to be served rather than as a servant of humanity.

Gay tech billionaires, Zionist club members, aren’t actually interested in the future of the American middle-class?

Who could’ve known!

That thrice married man, paying high dollar prostitutes, wasn’t actually the champion of family values?

Must be my TDS speaking, right?

Trump might be part of this elephant’s rear end, but the establishment alternative is not another creature. It’s about orientation. It’s about the actual values lived. Not the ones they state on camera, the ones they live out when not in character. Erosion of Christian values, despite the lip service paid to them, has led to a much more self-centered, tribal and exploitative present. Vice industry and debt have bound us. We need to get back to the universal perspective rather than the tribal. We must address the delusion of the ‘chosen’ and their systematic violence as a threat to stability and peace. We must side with those who accepted Christ rather than those who rejected and hate him.

Oh, and don’t forget, Judas didn’t spit on Christ when he betrayed him. No, he kissed him. The thirty pieces of silver mattered to him more than loyalty to those who entrusted him with carrying their common purse. There are many who call themselves Christians today, who may faithfully attend church every Sunday, but are on the side of evil and may be told “depart from me, I never knew you” for their unholy alliances.

The Truth That Gets You Fired

Have you noticed those holding a moderate view are often attacked more viciously than those actually pushing a cruel extreme? If you fight back against those who are trying to manufacture consent for their abuse you will be accused of hate.

Transferring Blame

Sophie Cunningham, a WNBA player, is now being harassed by the national sports media for her ‘controversial’ opinion that men don’t belong in women’s sports.

Of course it wasn’t just any man that she is talking about, it’s those crossed-dressing men, who appropriate the feminine traits (albeit very imperfectly) and think “identifies as a woman” is to be taken as a license to invade female spaces. This is obviously in defiance of the established social order that grants females exclusive space as protection from male attention—we also have created special categories of sports given the distinct advantage males have physically over women.

This is what Cunningham said after being asked her of transgender participation in female sports:

I got a lot of negative feedback about me hating trans. And I’m like, ‘I never once said that.’ I think that I am here to extend love. But I also think with that love is truth, being honest. And I want to protect young girls in a locker room, or young girls in sport who shouldn’t have to go against biological men.

That is a measured reasonable response—correcting a malicious mischaracterization of her opposition to biological men taking a place reserved for women. Since the girl’s locker room was invented perverted young men have been looking for an opportunity to invade it. There’s a reason why we have a term “peeping Tom” in the first place. But autogynephilia takes this a step further, this is a male becomes sexually aroused by the thought or image of himself being a female, and was diagnosed as transvestic disorder until the powers that be decided we should normalize this behavior.

The truly odd part, however, has been how the corporate media and a ton of bot farm social media content is blame-shifting their obsession with this story onto Cunningham as a sort of accusation. They act as if she is trying to stir the pot for giving an honest answer to a question ESPN asked her. This is a propaganda technique: Make the victim responsible for the negative attention rather than the aggressor. Typically we would see one person against a corporate machine as being weaker. But the people holding the megaphone flipped the script and act as if Cunningham is truly dictating the terms of the conversation.

Burger King Ambush

On August 5, 2026, a young woman named Arianna Hamilton was working her shift at a Burger King in Breinigsville, Pennsylvania. A known Zionist activist, a middle-aged Israeli dual citizen, somehow (details disputed) ended up in a verbal confrontation with Hamilton. How it all started is a he said, she said. She says Feinstein was aggressive. While he claims that she had made him feel unsafe. But we only have what he recorded, where he goads her to repeat phrase said during the course of an unrecorded conversation with disputed details.

Here is the viral exchange:

Rami Feinstein: “I’m here at Burger King and an employee in Burger King just said ‘Free Palestine’ to me.”

Rami Feinstein: (Turning the camera toward her) “Ariana, what did you say to me? What did you say to me, Arianna?”

Arianna Hamilton: “Sorry, I said ‘Free Palestine’.”

Rami Feinstein: “Okay. Okay, say it again.”

Arianna Hamilton: “Free Palestine!”

Rami Feinstein: “I got you, Ariana.”

Clearly Feinstein is looking to push the issue. If he really felt unsafe he would leave. Instead he is harassing a fast food employee, likely a teenager, and demanded a refund. And all because she had dared to respond to his own announcement of his Israeli citizenship with the phrase, “Free Palestine.”

She was fired from her job.

Not paid enough to compromise her integrity, rewarded for her stand.

To understand encounter a little better let’s consider an exchange with another political symbol. Say a white man walks into Burger King wearing a Confederate flag T-shirt and seeing it a young African-American woman says, “Black Lives Matter.” Then, in his grating and irritating voice the white supremacist ‘rebel’ demands the employee repeats this phrase for his camera and then goes on to claim he is a victim. Wouldn’t that be absurd?

It is even more absurd for an Israeli to ever play the victim card with a black teenager, clearly at a disadvantage to him, for saying “free Palestine” in response to the symbol of a country that is commiting an act of genocide as we speak. He, as a white man, can very easily blend in to general American society by not wearing a symbol of a foreign government associated with oppression and hate. But instead he displays it proudly while claiming that he feels unsafe.

The ‘Hate’ Hypocrisy…

Burger King, bowing to pressure, terminated the young woman exercising her freedom of speech. They claim that it is “incitement to hatred” and say it violated a zero-tolerance policy towards discrimination and antisemitism—I see a lawsuit against a corporation. In what sane world is “free [anything]” hateful? It is not and will never be. Yet those currently in control of the narrative need you to believe “freedom is slavery” and standing for those truly being oppressed is hatred.

If Burger King corporation is so concerned with a young employee speaking her mind—why are they okay when their franchises in Israel offer aid and comfort to the IDF as this army commits war crimes?

If you see a man in this picture, you’re hateful!

Zionism is the very same moral inversion of those saying Julie (Julien “Jimmy”) Tétart, an amateur French male basketball player for the ESC Tergnier and other clubs before undergoing his “transition,” is now somehow a victim of hate because of their clear physical advantage in a woman’s league. Hormones and surgery do not change Julie’s 6′-3″ frame from what it was as Jimmy and it’s shameful that the Monaco Basket Association would even put them on their roster. That’s controversial—not Cunningham politely defending her own opinion most people agree with:

I said what I said. I think it’s kind of common sense, and I think I’ll always believe in that.

The controversy with Burger King and free speech is a little different. Employees for a fast food restaurant are generally expected to not engage in political conversations and yet it’s still insane to frame it as threatening of a grown man. Feinstein was never in real danger. Children in Gaza, Lebanon or West Bank are in real danger. But the corporation is okay with their franchises in Israel giving free food directly to the IDF as this military is terrorizing the region. We cannot get any more ridiculous this. I mean, what’s next, is it going to be considered hate and a fireable offense to wear a Christian cross?

Meanwhile, people can wrap themselves in a banner, wear a symbol of an ongoing genocide then play victim when called out. We’re told it is controversial and asking for trouble when a WNBA player says what we are all thinking when we see a male frame in drag dominating women. Is this just rage bait? A page out of Rules for Radicals? Or maybe it is all of the above and a part of a control regime?

Who Runs the World?

The real point of the culture war is to keep us overwhelmed and distracted. As we are divided on how to define a woman or being told it is anti-semitic to oppose Israel killing the Semitic/Palestinian people, they quietly move pieces to strengthen their control of the world. This ‘they’ being the hands that move pieces on the global chessboard, the billionaire elites, the intelligence agencies, and all of the Epstein-class. These are the people who make money coming and going—stirring the conflict and the profiting from the war.

https://x.com/i/status/2086838463890903385

A name that came up in the Epstein emails, the well-connected pedophile speaking to a guy named Peter Thiel (who happens to be the Co-Founder and Executive Chairman of Palantir Technologies and a sponsor of JD Vance), with Epstein telling Thiel: “As you probably know, I represent the Rothschilds.” The Rothschild’s a powerful banking family which drew the U.S. into WW1, on behalf of the British, in exchange for Palestine. The Balfour Declaration states it explicitly:

His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

This is not conspiracy theory. This is simply a fact. 116,516 American boys died, and as many maimed, fighting in a trench war that did not have any bearing whatsoever on the nation they were from or their future. It’s an early price of Zionism before we even knew what to call it. It started with the sacrifice of American blood and continues unabated a century later in the Holy Lands.

Also Interesting, contrary to the effort under way to erase Palestinian identity, as part of a genocide, it is very clear this location was called Palestine. And the terms of Balfour’s declaration, “it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine,” have now been broken long ago. Now the occupants of this land claim “free Palestine” is hateful of Jews?

The West needs to wake up, the same who were dividing up Gaza long before October 7th became a pretext for ethnic cleansing, have designs to flood the U.S. and Europe with the refugees they create. They want Christians and Muslims killing each other and never united so their own small group of elites has total control (operating behind the chaos) of our government, our property, and our children. These Epstein-class elites already employ immense power over our culture—own both sides of the political divide which is a false choice. They want us to be simply be too confused or preoccupied to ever tell them “no” together.

The Rothchild dynasty, JP Morgan, banksters, responsible for incredible human suffering as a way to secure their wealth.

Have you seen what happened to Spain as they take a moral stand against genocide and decided to be neutral rather than host the U.S. Air Force as we rained missiles at girls’ schools in Iran? It’s not coincidence that recently tens of thousands of military age Moroccans invaded the Spanish territory in North Africa. Not a coincidence either that my social media feed was simultaneously full of Hasbura drawing the false equivalency between Spain having territory outside of Europe and Israel actively slaughtering people in Gaza, Lebanon and West Bank. Refugee crises are not merely leftist social engineering—it is a strategy to leave us fighting each other and helpless against the hand behind it.

This is no different from the strategy of modern missile offensives. The attacker hits the air defenses from all angles with cheap drones and missiles forcing a response. If they do not shoot down the low cost munitions they will do real damage. However, interceptors are expensive and limited in supply, when a defender’s finite capacity is tied down then they start to slip in their big punches. This is what the culture war is about, it is about keeping us fighting each other or distracted on the refugee chaos rather than focus on the strategy and who is behind it. You can’t defend against what you do not see.

We live in a matrix. One where good Jews are driven into conflict with good Muslims and Christians by those who have a totally different god and want to keep us deceived and blinded by prejudice. There are many who are Jewish and speaking out against those who have hijacked their identity and use it as a human shield against legitimate criticism. Zionism is a man who insists on invading female space, the aggressor who plays victim, and denies the reality of their own hate-fueled against Palestinians.

Zionism is NOT Judaism

You have lifted up the shrine of your king, the pedestal of your idols, the star of your god—which you made for yourselves.
(Amos 5:26)

Zionists are to Judaism what Nazism is to Christianity. Zionists use Jewish identity as a cloak, they proclaim their “Judeo-Christian values,” yet they do not have Jesus as their king nor do they act justly despite a claim of righteousness. The book of Acts, repeating Amos, has a word “Molek” in place of “king” and “star of Remphan” as part of Stephen’s speech to the corrupt Sanhedrin. He uses the mention of this star to accuse them of idolatry. There is not any mention of a star of David in Scripture. It’s Kabbalahistic. It’s anti-Christ. While more non-Jews say they are Zionists, Christian Zionist is oxymoron and is impossible for the same reason you can’t be a racially inclusive Nazi.

Six is associated with human effort (6th day of creation) and the anti-Christ.

Israel claims to be a democracy while also preventing millions from voting, says that it represents the West when making laws that allow the execution of Palestinians but not Jews, and then calls it “anti-semitic” to call this apartheid or oppose their genocide. It is a state that brutalizes Palestinian Jews—Zionists assassinated Jacob Israël de Haan for opposing their violent ethno-nationalism and trying to secure agreement for peaceful Jewish residence in Palestine in 1924. He was accused of being a traitor and killed by a Zionist terror squad. This was mirrored in 1995 with the assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. His only offense? He was having success negotiating peace with the Palestinians.

Zionist Israel has routinely exploited (or orchestrated) Jewish suffering their ethno-nationalist gain.

I would venture to say that most Jews, like most Muslims, aren’t bloodthirsty criminals and would rather simply get along with all people. It is the extremist fringe that believe they’re better than all others, want absolute control and can’t coexist with those different from them. Zionists are the equivalent to ISIS in a business suit. They know how to charm a Western audience while secretly harboring a Bronze Age barbaric mentality and celebrating the murder of children. They spend millions to dress up their genocide as protection of the West all the while Netanyahu carries a around a “Jews vs Romans” grudge and quips about needing to “win the next one.”

The blessings of Abraham are distributed to the world through Christ Jesus—a true Jew—and not through the mob who murdered him for speaking out against their corrupted version of Biblical religion. The first Jewish followers of Jesus truly embodied spirit and faith of Abraham rather than being “hostile towards everyone” (1 Thessalonians 2:14) as was the case of those who rejected the Gospel. That is what Zionism boils down to: A rejection of the Christ who said ‘my kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36) and taking up the offer of the devil in the wilderness:

The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. And he said to him, “I will give you all their authority and splendor; it has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to. If you worship me, it will all be yours.” Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.’”

When Jesus declared “I am the way and the truth and the life,” proclaiming himself to be the only way to God, he’s talking about what he embodies and the real costs of rejecting him. Christianity was a schism in Judaism, one embracing broader humanity with love and the other in a conflict with all in pursuit of dominance. Jesus rejected the sword—warning those who live by it die by it—while the Zionist reframes their violence as being a righteous defense of their inheritance. It only starts in the country called Israel, look who dominates banking, entertainment and politics: There’s no doubt that the rejection of Christ Jesus has a reward.

This isn’t compatible with Christ or Western civilization. It’s a twisting of Scripture to justify theft of inheritance.

Judaism, in general, is not the issue. We’re all born somewhere and the Old Testament law, like Islam, isn’t a bad starting point. It’s incomplete, from the perspective of the true believers in Jesus, but the books point us in the right direction. But when the rejection of the way of Christ becomes willful, truth is the first casualty and death will follow. Yes, cunning, deception and exploitation are a quick route to worldly wealth, the system of usery is the driver of inequality and anathema to an idea of giving with no expectation of return in the teaching of Jesus. Those who do violence to others may gain the world—but they lose their own soul in the process.

The intense hatred of Christianity, that is the heart of Zionism, stems from an inheritance being taken away and given to another. The “kingdom of God,” meaning the true spiritual inheritance of Abraham, was taken away as a result of wilful disobedience. That’s what the Parable of the Tenants (Matthew 21:33-46) makes abundantly clear. Outside of the way, the path of and letting go of pride or a spirit of entitlement, there is no other way to salvation. You can reject and kill Jesus, go on to gain the world by cunning or violence, even convince many with false prophets or fake miracles—but you can only ever enter the kingdom through Christ.

The real reason why Sophie Cunningham and Arianna Hamilton are treated as a bigger threat than extremists, for moderate and reasonable views, is because they will expose the absurdity of the narratives being pushed if left unmolested. The media and Rami Feinstein understand that the truth is not on their side and thus their only defense is to extinguish the voices that call them out for what they are. Those who seek to erase the children of Gaza and Palestinian identity are of the very same spirit as those who cancel a person for telling the truth about the biological men who invade female spaces. The truth is not in them and the lies they embrace are corrupting the world.

The truth sets us free: The Gospel is for the Jew as much as the Gentile.

So with that I say: Free Palestine from the rule of the Zionists who immediately broke the terms of the Balfour Declaration. Protect women from the men who appropriate womanhood—invade and occupy spots designated for women. We should call out those who hide behind co-opted identity and perpetual claims of victimhood as an excuse for their own abuse.

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.

Perspectives, Not Truth: Why Our Moral Codes Are Always Incomplete

Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.
Marcus Aurelius

I will attempt to bring multiple threads together in this blog and the quote above is a good starting point. If there is objective reality it’s not going to be something possessed by one human. We do not know all circumstances nor can we vet and independently verify every fact we receive. Or at least not without becoming totally hamstrung by the details. We put our trust in parties, traditions, systems, credentials and the logic which makes sense to us.

The deeper we dive into our physical reality the murkier it all gets. The world ‘above’ that we encounter feels concrete. But there is not a whole lot of substance to be found as we get beneath the surface. The rules that we discovered—of time and space—end up dissolving into a sea of probabilities and paradoxes at a quantum level that we don’t have an answer to. And this is the ‘concrete’ observable reality. We all see our own unique perspective, a slice, and build our model of the world from it.

But it is even murkier when we get to topics of social science. Morality and ethics, built often from what we believe is fact or truth, is more simply opinion and perspective than it can be hammered out in words everyone is able to agree on. Even for those who are of the same foundational religious assumptions—despite even having the same source texts—do not agree on matters of interpretation or application. So who is right? And who is wrong? How do we decide?

1) Patrick: We Don’t Need God To Be Moral

My cousin, Patrick, a taller, better looking and more educated version of myself, an independent thinker, and has departed from his missionary upbringing—gives this great little presentation: “Where Do You Get Your Morality?“

His foundation for a moral value system is concepts of truth, freedom and love which he describes in the video. I find it to be compelling and compatible with my own basic views. Our cooperation is as natural as competition, it is what makes us human, and a conscience gives potential for better returns.

However, while I agree with his ideal, there is also reason why deception, tyranny and indifference are as common in the world—they are natural—and this is because it can give one person or tribe an advantage. Lies, scams, and political propaganda all exploit trust and can be a shortcut for gaining higher status or more access.

No, cheating doesn’t serve everyone. But the lion has no reason to regret taking down a slow gazelle. By removing the weak, sick, or injured, it inadvertently culls the less-fit genes from the herd, strengthening the prey population over time and even preventing overgrazing of the savannah. It’s just a raw service to ecosystem balance, much like a short seller who exposes those overvalued stocks, forcing the market corrections and greater efficiency—acts of pure self-interest yielding a broader good.

Herd cooperation or predator opportunism are different strategies, both 100% natural and amoral in their own context. I’m neither psychopath nor a cannibal, but I do suspect those who are those things would as readily rationalize their own drives and proclivities. Nature doesn’t come with a rulebook—only consequences.

I’m certainly not a fan of the “might makes right” way of thinking and that is because my morality and ethics originate from the perspective being disadvantaged. But I also understand why those who never struggled and who have the power to impose their own will without fear of facing any consequences often develop a different moral framework.

We need to be invested in the same moral and civilizational project. Or else logic, that works for only some who have the strength or propaganda tools, will rule by default. I don’t disagree with Patrick, but his core message caters to a high IQ and high empathy crowd—which does leave me wondering how we can bring everyone else on board?

2) Kirk: A Way To Focus Our Moral Efforts

Charlie Kirk wasn’t a significant figure to me before his death. It may be a generational thing or just a general lack of interest in the whole conservative influencer crowd. I feel dumber any time I listen to Steven Crowder and assumed Kirk was just another one of the partisan bomb throwers. But, from my exposure to his content since, I have gained some appreciation.

Bring back the Ten Commandments, because it worked so well the first time?

Arguing for the Ten Commandments has never been a priority for me. It’s a list with a context and not standalone. Nevertheless it is a starting point for a moral discussion and also one that it seems Charlie Kirk would go to frequently in his campus debates. The two most difficult of these laws to explain to a religious skeptic are certainly the first two: “I am the Lord your God; Have no other gods before me and do not make idols.”

We generally agree on prohibition of murder and theft, or even adultery, but will disagree on one lawgiver and judge.

Why?

Well, it is simply because divine entity is abstract compared to things we have experienced—like the murder of a loved one or something being stolen from us. You just know this is wrong based on how it makes you feel. The belief in celestial being beyond human sight or comprehension just does not hit the same way as events we have observed. And it’s also the baggage the concept of a God carries in the current age. I mean, whose God?

It seems to be much easier just to agree the lowest common denominator: Don’t do bad things to other people.

But then we don’t. We justify killing others if it suits our political agenda, labeling people as bad for doing what we would do if facing a similar threat to our rights. If I’ve learned one thing it is that people always find creative ways to justify themselves while condemning the other side for even fighting back against an act of aggression.

Self-proclaimed good people do very bad things to good people. Like most people see themselves as above average drivers (not mathematically possible), we tend to distort things in favor of ourselves. Fundamental attribution error means we excuse our own compromises as a result of circumstances while we assume an immutable character flaw when others violate us. We might be half decent at applying morality to others—but exempt ourselves and our own.

So morality needs a focal point beyond us as individuals. There must be a universal or common good. Which might be the value of a theoretical ‘other’ who observes from a detached and perfectly unprejudiced point, the ideal judge. Not as a placeholder, but as the ultimate aim of humanity. One God. One truth. One justice. This as the answer to double standards, selective outrage and partisan bias. If we’re all seeking the same thing there is greater potential of harmony and social cohesion where all benefit.

At very least it would be good to promote an idea of an ultimate consequence giver that can’t be bought or bribed.

3) The Good, the Bad and the Aim for What Is Practically Impossible

The devil is always in the details. And the whole point of government is to mediate in this regard. Unfortunately, government, like all institutions, is merely a tool and tools are only as good as the hands that are making a use of them. A hammer is usually used to build things, but can also be used to bash in a skull. Likewise, we can come up with that moral system and yet even the best formed legal code or enforcement mechanism can be twisted—definitions beaten into what the current ruling regime needs.

The United States of America started with a declaration including the words “all men are created equal” and a Constitution with that starts: “We the people…” This is reflection of the Christian rejection of favoritism and St. Paul telling the faithful “there is no Jew or Greek” or erasing the supremacy claims of some. An elite declaring themselves to be exempted or specially chosen by God is not compatible with this vision. We never ask a chicken for consent what we take the eggs. We do not extend rights to those who we consider to be inferior to us or less than human. Human rights hinge on respect for the other that transcends politics.

That’s where the labels come in. If we call someone a Nazi, illegal, MAGAt, leftist or a Goyim we are saying that they are less than human and don’t deserve rights. This is the tribal and identity politics baseline. Those in the out-group are excluded for decency, their deaths celebrated as justice (even if there’s no due process) and we’ll excuse or privilege our own. All sides of the partisan divide do this—we create a reason to deny rights to others often using things like truth, freedom and love (Patrick’s foundation) as our justification: “Those terrorists hate our freedom and democracy, we must fight for those we love and our truth!”

Bringing this to a practical level: Looking at Minneapolis, the ICE and anti-ICE activities, we have competing moral narratives and a different vision for application of American values. On one side of the debate you have those who say that “one is one too many” if an illegal immigrant kills a US citizen—then suddenly do not care when Federal agents shoot a fellow American. The defiant “don’t tread on me” opposition to mandates and masks during Covid somehow shifting to “comply or die!” On the other side you have those outraged about Kyle Rittenhouse and who have been traditionally opposed to the 2nd Amendment defending Alex Pretti while the Trump administration condemns a man for carrying a permitted firearm.

Judgment is for the other, it seems, rights for those who look like us or agree. It’s this inconsistent eye, the call for understanding of our own and grace for ourselves with the harsh penalties applied to those within the forever shifting lines of our out-group, that shows how our political perspectives cloud our moral judgment. The ‘sin’ is not the act itself, but whether or not the violation suits our broader agenda. This is why ‘Christian’ fundamentalists, who will preach the love of Jesus on Sunday, can be totally indifferent to the suffering of children with darker skin tones—their God is about national schemes not a universal good or a commonly applied moral standard.

The aim needs to be justice that is blind to who and only considers what was done. If pedophilia is excused for powerful people who run our government and economy, then it should be for those at the bottom as well. If the misdemeanor of crossing an invisible line is bad, a justification for suspension of due process for all Americans, then why is it okay to violate the sovereignty of Venezuela or Iran over claims of human rights abuse?

The US fought a war of independence, took the country for the British and yet has been acting as a dictator, installing kings, when it suits our neo-colonial elites.

That’s immoral.

We’re all immoral.

The moral code of Patrick, Charlie or myself is incomplete—because every moral code is incomplete when filtered through human eyes. We start from our different premises: Patrick’s secular triad of truth, freedom, and love; Kirk’s religious appeal to the Ten Commandments and a divine lawgiver as the only reliable check on self-deception; my own reluctant recognition that empathy and cooperation are real, yet fragile, against the raw arithmetic of power and advantage. Yet all of our approaches circle the same problem: without some external, impartial standard that transcends our biases, tribes, and self-justifications, our morality devolves into competing opinions dressed as facts—exactly as Aurelius observed.

We cannot fully escape the murk. Objective reality, if it exists, slips through our fingers like quantum probabilities—and moral truth fractures along lines of culture, experience, and interest. Even when we agree on broad principles (don’t murder, don’t steal), the application often splinters: whose life counts as being worthy of protection? Whose borders, laws, or children deserve a defense? And whose “justice” is merely revenge in better lighting?The temptation is cynicism—just declare all values relative, retreat to my own personal pragmatism, and then let might (or votes, or algorithms) sort the rest. But that is a path leads to the very outcomes we decry—dehumanization, selective outrage, and the erosion of the entire civilizational project that allows agnostic high-empathy and high-IQ arguments like Patrick’s to even exist. Yes, nature may be amoral, but us humans build societies by pretending otherwise, by our aiming higher than baser ‘animal’ instincts—reaching for God.

So perhaps the most honest conclusion is not to claim possession of the full truth, but to commit to pursuing it together—knowing we’ll never quite arrive. We definitely need focal points that force some accountability beyond ourselves: whether that’s a concept of one ultimate observer who sees without favoritism, or by a shared commitment to universal human dignity rooted in principle beyond biology or tribe, or simply just the hard-won habit of applying the same rules to our side as to the other. Blind justice isn’t natural or self-evident—it’s cultivated. Morality is an aim which requires vigilance against our own double standards, humility before the limits of our perspective, and courage to defend principles we claim even when they inconvenience us.

In the end, we don’t need perfect agreement on the source of morality to agree that inconsistency in application is poisonous. What goes around will certainly come around and if we live by the sword we’ll die by it. If we can at least hold each other (and ourselves) to a standard higher than “what works for my group right now,” preserve the space for mutually beneficial cooperation over cruel predation—a shared conscience over mere convenience. Anything less, and the gazelle never outruns the lion for long—and neither does the society which forgets why it tried.

Lies, Damned Lies, and AI — The Machine Can’t Replace Mind

AI is an exciting new tool—kind of like Wikipedia was back in the day, something fun to turn to for those quick answers. But let’s be clear: AI is NOT a replacement for actual research. No, it isn’t an independent mind, and it’s certainly no impartial judge. All it really does is take the content that’s currently acceptable to its creators and then will synthesize it into responses. And it will lie to you outright, with zero conscience, because it has no conscience at all. It’s a sophisticated machine, a tool, nothing more or less, and it can absolutely be manipulated by the agendas of those behind the scenes who run it.

Like Wikipedia or so-called fact-checkers, at best, AI reflects the current bias or the established narrative. A perfect example of this is the lab leak theory for Covid-19’s origins. Back when some of us were talking about it, we were being “debunked” (some even banned), only for things to reverse later. As of early 2025, the CIA has assessed that a research lab origin is more likely than a natural one. So, to all the “sources please” crowd: beware. There’s no substitute for building your own knowledge base and using your own brain to evaluate things independently of official or established organizations.

AI is probably less reliable than your GPS. Sure, the tool works most of the time, but it’s no replacement for your own eyes or basic navigation skills. “Death by GPS” is a real category for a reason—if the machine were totally accurate, people wouldn’t drive off cliffs or into lakes after following bad directions. We need our own internal map, built on some established waypoints and a landmark or two, rather than just plugging in an address and blindly following the device into the abyss. Above all, we need a strong internal BS detector, we need it because the tool belongs to them—and it does what its creators need it to do. And telling you the unvarnished truth isn’t always the priority.

At its very best, AI will reflect the currently available information and most dominant narrative. Imagine, had the technology been available, asking it about the threat of Covid early on—it very likely would have dismissed outlier concerns as rumors, downplayed the disease in comparison to the seasonal flu, maybe even lectured about racism—while echoing the House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s encouragement, February of 2020, to visit those crowded streets of San Francisco’s Chinatown in total defiance of emerging fears. (A family member ridiculed me for saying Covid would be a big deal at that time—dutifully citing mainstream media sources saying it was less worrisome than the seasonal flu.)

People have also very quickly forgotten how The Lancet published a deeply flawed study in the critical early weeks of the pandemic claiming hydroxychloroquine was extremely dangerous—only to quietly retract it later because the authors couldn’t verify the authenticity of the data. In short, the data was totally unreliable, and was a study based on falsehoods presented as science. If that was the “reliable” information being fed into an AI system back then, what would it have told you the scientific consensus was? It would have parroted the lie, and made it as unreliable as the retracted paper during the most urgent phase of the crisis. AI didn’t exist in its current form at the time, but its behavior would have mirrored exactly what I describe: reflecting the biased mainstream thought rather than truly act as a functioning as an independent thinker.

AI lags behind reality. A semi-independent mind—one relying on their personal intelligence and a grounded model of the world—can oftentimes do better. When I saw the early images coming out of Wuhan and listened to reports from doctors there (some of whom later died or disappeared), I knew this was not just the seasonal flu. It didn’t matter how many three-letter agencies were being quoted by corporate media; I could make my own judgment. I also quickly realized how terribly politicized even a pandemic can become. People didn’t pick sides based on the evidence—instead, they chased (or even invented) evidence to confirm their partisan narratives.

If AI had existed back then, it would have picked a side based on what its owners wanted. Covid is where I really honed my BS detector and learned that both sides lie—not that I was oblivious before, but seeing it play out in real time was very eye-opening. Partisans would flip positions the moment their preferred politicians did. Suddenly, independent voices raising alarms (with Trump leaning that way) became the target, then Democrats outflanked this with total hysteria after their months of denial when it actually mattered. We saw the same flip with Operation Warp Speed: with the left as vaccine skeptics while Trump promoted them, only for the Democrats pushing hard for mandates while Republicans opposed even masks.

How fast a symbol of oppression/security can become a symbol of oppression/security. Questions remain about effectiveness in either context.

Now, identity-obscuring masks are back in style as authoritarian right-wing fashion, as ICE agents terrorize, and insurrections are now cool again for Democrats who dislike immigration laws or the last election results. And AI won’t fix any of this partisanship—especially when people use it without understanding how it works or its severe limitations.

At best, AI is a good supplement or starting point for someone who already knows how to ask the right questions. At worst, it will lie and give you exactly what you want to hear. But one thing is certain: AI is NOT an objective truth-teller. Rely on your own reasoning, your own research, your own past experience, the reliable voices you have vetted on your own or your own BS detector first. The AI machine is no substitute. Yes, independent thinking is tough, in practice, and yet we must be smarter than the tool. Journalism, Wikipedia, or fact-checkers and GPS—all of these things are reliable… until they’re not.

Trump’s Primal Persuasion: Breaking Rules to Get Results (And Why It Both Grinds and Intrigues Me)

Every so often, I finally figure something out and can make a real observation. Recently, I saw a social media post from Trump—likely one of his bold declarations about Venezuela—and what he was doing became crystal clear.

He doesn’t have an actual inked or signed deal with the Venezuelan side yet. But that doesn’t matter. Trump is targeting people at a primal level rather than appealing to the intellect—because that’s where our decisions are truly made. We’re emotional creatures, not purely rational ones.

Trump is manifesting. He declares it, brings it into the realm of reality, then does everything in his power to bully everyone into accepting it. And it does make me wonder: Is this truly how the world works? It’s easier when you’re already a billionaire and the President, of course, but he names it and claims it. Or, using his colloquial description, it’s the “grab ’em by the p*ssy” style of persuasion: “She wants it. I’m rich and can get anything she wants. She’ll come around to seeing things my way.” It’s hyper-confidence—the insane confidence of a man who truly believes he can get away with anything. He’s the salesman who has fully bought into his own pitch and, through brutal persuasion, forces the sale: “I’ll make you an offer you can’t refuse!”

I’m not like that.

I always try to respect boundaries, persuade with logic and arguments. Trump just declares it, and if you don’t go along with his plan, you’re [insert insult here].

Let me explain with a personal example: Years ago, I wrote a 14-page letter to a woman I was interested in, laying out a long theological and philosophical argument to make my case. Of course, I never sent it. Yeah, I might be half autistic, but I’m not completely dumb. I know men don’t win a woman’s heart through her head. If I’d handed her that lengthy dissertation, she wouldn’t have cheered—she’d probably have cried, gotten confused, or walked away. Certainly not agreed to a date. In romance, we’re primal, not intellectual. The same applies to our political alignments.

If I actually knew how to do that primal type of persuasion in real time, I’d probably get my way more often. It’s the easier to ask forgiveness than to get permission mindset—and it wouldn’t exist if it didn’t actually work.

Entitled, narcissistic, and manipulative can also be described as media-savvy, self-assured, and effective—depending on how you frame it. Trump grinds my gears because he doesn’t follow the rules that exist in my worldview. He reframes the entire discussion with his violations of rules—like kidnapping a head of state—and yet it’s all part of a larger plan.

The real goal appears to be renewing the flow of oil from Venezuela to the US. Trump doesn’t care who is in charge or what economic system they have (though he knows you do). He’s focused on moving the conversation to where he needs it: a secure source of energy and minerals next door, not on the other side of the world.

Legal? Only if you stretch the law to its breaking point. Effective? Well, who wants to be next?

We all agree Maduro—like most politicians—probably belongs in jail, and maybe we should do this more often (at home rather than abroad). Making this bold military move is psychological: it’s intimidating and forces cooperation. If the new government makes a deal, the US lifts sanctions, oil flows again—and suddenly Venezuela’s universal healthcare isn’t an issue anymore. The real holdup was the pile of nonsense, grudges, and gridlock on both sides. Trump broke the rules of the conflict, and now he can negotiate a new deal for the benefit of everyone who cooperates.

Ultimately, like most people, I govern myself by external rules: Do this, don’t do that! We treat them as absolute, written in stone. I’ll die on this hill of my principles! But this can become a hindrance—a functional fixedness or quagmire of competing ideals that mostly boil down to semantics and different words for the same things. I know Trump is wrong because I’m right! He gets what he wants by breaking my rules of engagement, so he must be evil!

However, Friedrich Nietzsche called this “slave morality” and saw it as an obstacle to humanity’s full potential. His ideas of self-overcoming, being our own lawgiver, embracing the wholeness of life (without assigning moral weight to every experience), and rejecting herd mentality or conformity to the status quo all go against being compliant for sake of compliance.

Trump gets far more done with his impolite bluster than most do in a lifetime of “honest” effort. He appeals to our carnal, visceral side—and while all politicians do this to some degree, he does it nakedly, without the usual polish.

We confuse the rational (religious, scientific, or otherwise) with the reality of our base desires—for control, status, recognition. Trump disrupts, shakes the basket, and builds a new path through the chaos that suits his agenda.

Facing the ‘wrong’ way in an elevator makes people uncomfortable. But it’s not illegal. And people will actually conform to the group if they turn the opposite direction.

The world is governed by unwritten rules and unspoken agreements. Some of us want to nail it all down, demanding predictability and compliance with standards we were told would make the world better. We’re often jammed up in conflicts over false dichotomies and invented moral frameworks. I know this from my religious upbringing: the constant looking over our shoulders, meeting expectations rather than pursuing what we enjoy, and the resentment simmering underneath.

One of my Mennonite friends had the speed and size to be a D1 athlete, but he never pursued it because his conservative parents wouldn’t approve. He “kept the peace”—like many of us—at the expense of his potential.

He has expressed regrets.

From a Christian perspective, the self-actualizing person is unrepentant and rejects God. Trump’s habit of making up his own facts—like claiming an ICE agent was run over when video clearly shows otherwise—is strikingly similar to the “my own truth” of the woke left. The risk is complete detachment from our useful tradition (what has worked) and science (what will work), eventually steering civilization into the weeds.

But the proof is in the pudding. If Trump leaves office without causing WW3, with the economy largely intact, can we really feel bad that some rules were broken?

Then again, maybe we could achieve the same things through conventional means. What if we threw a few billionaires in jail instead of a foreign head of state, or sided with the world court on Netanyahu rather than Maduro? Either way—optimal or suboptimal—we’ll remember Trump’s name. Like the popular feminist quote, “Well-behaved women seldom make history,” a timid man is likewise not widely respected or impactful. Is it possible we all need liberation from the clutter of our minds and reasons?

Still, I think there’s a better synthesis between Trump and the pointy-headed intellectuals too high in their ivory towers to be of practical value.

Trump wins because he identified the struggles of real people, rather than deny them. Maybe some academics with a racial theory can write a thesis about ‘privilege’ and yet have they ever solved any problems in the real world?

I like my own conscientiousness—orientation toward respect for established standards and individual rights over political expediency.

And yet, by the time I carefully deliberate all the angles of legality and practicality and examine potential failure points the opportunity is often gone. A guy who reacts to opportunity, seizes the moment, dictates the outcome in advance (while staying flexible enough to read the room and adapt), reaches the goal—even if he has done the ‘wrong’ way by conventional wisdom.

If morality is all a social construct, all part of a complex negotiation, then maybe following pure instincts and base intuition is better than obeying a list of rules?

Who says the other side must sign a paper—or even agree in advance—to have a deal?

If it’s a win-win at the end, despite the pain of the process, fewer casualties, is it good?

What do you think? Does primal persuasion win out, or do we need more rules to keep things civilized? I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments.

Wise As Serpents: Discernment in a World of Deception

I’ve heard stories of Mennonite old timers who would walk into a dealership, ask them to give their best price and then refuse to engage in any haggling beyond that. To them this concrete style of communication is commanded by Jesus and something I can respect. Their word was their bond. They did not play all the games. Business that is honest and done with a handshake.

What a pleasant and simple world it would be if everyone operated this way. No need for lawyers to read the fine print if everyone were an honest broker like this. But we do not live in that world. And there are those who love to exploit the trust of those born into Anabaptist religious cloisters. Every few years there’s another fraudster who sweeps through Amish and Mennonite country, selling the next big ‘investment’ and wiping out the hard earned savings of the unsuspecting—which is not to even mention those small scale “natural healing” swindles or grift seminars.

Apparently actual snake oil, sold by the Chinese, had some medicinal value, but the Clark Stanley version had no snake oil or healing qualities.

This is why healthy skepticism is necessary and discernment of character is a skill that must be learned. Born into one of these communities, I’m still far too trusting—most especially if someone starts to speak my language. “Oh, he stands up for the working class! They’re the defenders of freedom and democracy!” We fall for those who exploit us, who manufacture consent by various means, who claim to be like us and yet lack our Christian conscience. We are most susceptible to those who mimic our values as part of their deception.

Being a good or moral person can lead to being extra vulnerable. Some just lack the imagination for evil, which is wonderful innocence, but this is not optimal. Wisdom requires that we are able to read through a sales pitch and understand how propaganda works. A skilled liar plays on what you want to hear, they exploit the prejudices and preconceived ideas of any audience. We need to be a step ahead of their schemes—which requires a little pattern recognition or small consideration of what may be hidden behind their words.

Letting Your Yea Be Yes, Nay Be Nay

Growing up, going to a public school, there was always that “I swear on my grandma’s grave” kid. Cued by your incredulous face, he would attempt to fortify his most questionable claims with this invocation of something else trustworthy. And the whole reason for this is that their own word wasn’t good enough. And this swearing act itself would arouse my suspicions. If I can’t trust you in a small inconsequential claim—how could I ever trust your oath?

Obviously this was theatrics in Secondary school, but a manner of speech that Jesus targeted for rebuke:

Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.
(Matthew 5:33-37 NIV)

This is repeated in James 5:12 a bit more succinctly:

Above all, my brothers and sisters, do not swear—not by heaven or by earth or by anything else. All you need to say is a simple “Yes” or “No.” Otherwise you will be condemned.

Credibility is something built over time and lost in an instant. Swearing an oath won’t fix a loss of trust. But it does basically admit that your own word is not sufficient and this suggests a deeper problem. An oath is useful in a courtroom, where it is used as a dividing line between speech that is free and misleading words you can be prosecuted for—yet what Jesus says is part of a broader push in the direction of plain and honest speech. As St Paul instructs:

Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to your neighbor, for we are all members of one body.
(Ephesians 4:25 NIV)

Practice truthfulness.

Humanity is one team, one body, so deception is a sin against all members.

The Bible is also full of examples of the opposite of this:

Those who flatter their neighbors are spreading nets for their feet.
(Proverbs 29:5 NIV)

Everyone lies to their neighbor; they flatter with their lips but harbor deception in their hearts. May the Lord silence all flattering lips and every boastful tongue.
(Psalm 12:2-3 NIV)

Not a word from their mouth can be trusted; their heart is filled with malice. Their throat is an open grave; with their tongues they tell lies [or flatter].
(Psalm 5:9 NIV)

My companion attacks his friends; he violates his covenant. His talk is smooth as butter, yet war is in his heart; his words are more soothing than oil, yet they are drawn swords.
(Psalms 55:20-21 NIV)

In all of these cases you have those who appear to be our friends and use flowery and agreeable speech to ensnare. We naturally suspect those who aren’t like us, who say the stuff we don’t like, but we trust those who speak our native tongue and seem to share our cultural values. That’s our blind side and vulnerability. A guy shows up in a nice suit, well-groomed, and we’ll just take him as credible. We’re susceptible to those who dress up their deception in the familiar—or who feed our prejudices.

Those Who Dress To Deceive

The Bible mentions flattery, a Trojan horse and the way some use to lower our guard, but the Gospel warns about this:

Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.
(Matthew 7:15 NIV)

Looks can be deceiving.

For there are many rebellious people, full of meaningless talk and deception, especially those of the circumcision group. They must be silenced, because they are disrupting whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach—and that for the sake of dishonest gain. One of Crete’s own prophets has said it: “Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.” This saying is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the merely human commands of those who reject the truth. To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted. They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good.
(Titus 1:10-16 NIV)

If it were easy to cut through the crap then there would be very little chance of anyone ever being deceived. But the worst enemies of Christ weren’t those who had openly hunted and tried to kill his followers. You knew to avoid them. It’s those who entered the church to subvert and undermine.

St Paul calls out those of the “circumcised group” and who have actions that deny the relationship they claim to have with God. Today we deal with something insidious, now embedded into several generations through propaganda and established prejudice. We can’t see it because it hides within us, carries a familiar last name or claims to have devotion to the same values.

Many now believe it is okay to kill babies for an ethno-state. They go to church on Sunday never realizing that they have departed from Christ:

Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
(Matthew 7:21-23 NIV)

Those who have yoked together with those who Jesus said are “of their father the devil” (John 8:44) are as doomed to hell as an unbeliever. The Covenant with Abraham was tied to sharing his faith and righteousness. Likewise, you are not of Christ unless you obey his will no matter how “born again” you feel or how flowery you pray in front of the crowd. Enabling evil is just evil. Jesus called out the fakes who hid behind their mask of devotion and his earliest followers did the same. Stephen “cut them to the heart” challenging the Jewish leaders with a flurry of accusations—they killed him for telling the truth:

You have taken up the tabernacle of Molek and the star of your god Rephan, the idols you made to worship. Therefore I will send you into exile’ beyond Babylon. (Acts 7:43 NIV)

Harmless as Doves, Yet…

The simple and honest are especially vulnerable to the cunning and crafty. And it’s not always a matter of intelligence. It is about trust. It is about being a part of the same civilizational project.

Some places you can leave front doors unlocked and not worry about being robbed. Everyone is bought into the same moral code or same social contract, and thus respects the property and the rights of others who are partners in the overall work. And the doors of our civilization are wide open—not turning people away is a wonderful Christian value and good.

However, this value also means many let their guard down around imposters who pretend to be like us and yet work to subvert, supplant, enslave or destroy what we’ve built. They are a “snake in the grass” slithering, waiting for the moment of weakness to strike. They’re the wolves who will accuse the sheepdog of being a bigger threat to the sheep while they plot to devour the flock.

Yes, an impulse towards being charitable is great, but also we need to be wary of those who do not share the same civilizational bond or social contract—this is what Jesus said:

I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.
(Matthew 10:16 NIV)

There was this horrible story about a young man opening the door to two men who were dressed like UPS delivery drivers and ended up paying with his life. The fake employees pushed into the residence, with two others who had hidden around the corner, and they murdered the young man and two women in the home—all of this happening in front of two children under the age of five.

We trust based on appearance. If the men in the story above had been dressed like a couple hoodlums nobody would open that door. There’s little chance of a very foreign looking religion or culture slipping into our communities unnoticed. But when we see something familiar or someone speaking in a way to convince us they’re on our side we do not take precautions. We let them in without considering that they could have values completely different despite their surface level disguise.

Whether the Trojan horse gift or that bright beautiful serpent in the garden—it is the job of the discerning person to sound the alarm and protect their own community or home from evil schemes. You need to be able to think like the schemers do to anticipate the deception. The first thing the wolves do is attack and try to silence the voices of those who identify them as being a threat. They will always come after the watch dog first before devouring the sheep.

Fool Me Once Shame On You

Zionism had slipped into my former Mennonite church through Evangelicalism. The church was founded near the same time a state called Israel was founded with a brutal and cruel expulsion of indigenous people. But we celebrated plucky little Israel, as if they came about by a miracle rather than being a result of a campaign of terrorism or military means. For whatever reason Palestinians didn’t matter, as just another group of backwards Arabs, and I’m guessing this is *still* the majority opinion as far as fundamentalist part of the sect I was born in. It’s just part of a disconnect between the love they profess on Sunday and the politics they accept the rest of the week.

Even if the state of Israel is a part of God’s plan does not mean we should be the cheerleaders for genocide or the justifiers of abuse of others. The “I didn’t vote for Trump to be a pastor” crowd seems to be too happy with the totally merciless treatment of the native population—including their innocent children. Apparently God’s chosen are just to be exempted from Christian ethics and can just kill as they please.

It defies every message on grace and mercy ever shared from a church pulpits. We let a wolf into the church and it has devoured our humanity in the name of a worldly kingdom.

Unfortunately Zionist ideology, their sensational end times fantasy, has caused many to abandon the cause of Christ. The old serpent has slipped through the church doors decades ago and is now preaching from many pulpits. He infiltrates the ranks, pretends to share our values as he subtly undermines them, and soon what is up is down is up—with the ‘faithful’ defending a Sodomizing pedo protecting baby killing cult of elites and calling good old fashioned conservative American values.

Hasbura will tell you Goliath was a victim and David a villain.

The worst part is when even to question the official narrative, put out by those who lied once will lie again, is twisted into being an ‘evil’ worse than any other. They don’t seem to get that good institutions can be hijacked or that Jesus most certainly did insult those who held positions of authority and he did it by calling them out to their faces. This idea that we must shrink away from challenging the mask of righteousness worn to fool the masses is just flat out wrong. We must call out what the New Testament writers call the synagogue of Satan:

I know about the slander of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.
(Revelation 2:9 NIV)

In the end, we either are what we say we are or we’re not. That’s what yay be yay is truly about. James warns against being double-minded, about showing favoritism, and the New Testament is full of statements which emphasize no difference between Jew and Gentile in Christ. Israel isn’t a blessing nor is it protected by the hand of God. No, they are simply willing to do the treacherous and nasty things that are completely antithetical to the teachings of Jesus Christ. We need to be wiser understanding that some will lie to gain our money or support.

“You’re Thirty Years Old Living In Milton”

The quote in title, an unintentionally honest comment from a pious young woman, will continue to ring in my ears for decades to come. Scripture describes the word of God being “sharper than any two-edged sword,” but her romantic rejection came more like a hammer blow to my Mennonite worldview where spiritual was supposed to outweigh physical gain. I had patterned my life, up to that point, around a sort of practicality over flash and suddenly realized what I thought was an asset was actually liability.

I was reminded of these words again as my wife’s glowing approval of the monstrosity in my driveway, a Ford Explorer ST, still feels out of place for me. I mean, granted, I was not keen on transitioning to family life with a pedestrian option like a minivan or boring SUV. But I didn’t expect my always frugal—cost conscious—female counterpart to go along with it 100%. She was supposed to pump the brakes and did not. I’ve realized, in this, that every woman is happy with the nice things and won’t say no if you provide it for them. We’ve both agreed to blame the baby for our reckless financial decision.

So, back to Milton, a place I’ve since moved on from and to the higher cost town across the river. Up until the words from the mouth of this wholesome girl, I had thought having a little house completely paid off would be worth something—even attractive. After all she claimed to be interested in missionary service and what better place to get a start, right? From what I had believed, there are needs anywhere there are people and where better to start than a deteriorating industrial town? Milton is an example of the rust belt, a place of declining opportunities and costs of outsourcing production.

The phrase “you’re thirty years old living in Milton” was simply accurate conveyance of her underlying priorities. There’s always the difference between what we say we are and the actual truth. Even in the secular culture there’s a romanticization of the love of two impoverished people who stand together in desperate circumstances. And those raised in an environment where Christian mission is supposed to be first, living as one poor as a church mouse amongst common people would seem the ideal.

But it is not. No, this young woman, like the one who had rejected me for not pursuing a title of “missionary” or “pastor” years prior, was clearly after status. They will not say it outright, probably are not even aware, but it is a kind of glamour they seek in service. A call to some exotic location to impress their religious peers. Sure, a Bentley may not be status in a conservative Anabaptist church, but the ability to jet around the world (often on someone else’s dime) is thrilling where it is considered sacrifice. It is currency, a way to gain status in a community of faith or be seen as righteous.

Resources are showered on the ministry or mission. Sure, it comes with stress, my 9-5 does as well, but the payoff is proportional. And not talking about “treasures in heaven” or God’s favor. A pastor has access to the community resources. It is social power as much as it is a position of responsibility and there are always those who want to curry a little favor. Again, it also comes with more scrutiny as well, but most tend to minimize the costs when they set off in a particular direction. Besides that, for the Mennonite woman, this is for the broad shoulders of her husband to bear, right?

The high expectations of my wife have been a little surprising to me. To her credit, she has been putting up with a partly finished remodel of old house since marrying and moving in. But yet, despite coming from the Philippines, her standards are now close to that of an American woman. We comment about our son’s demands for what the other kids have, but often fail the test ourselves. I mean, is it at all coincidence that I decide to finally pull the trigger on a new vehicle after a Mennonite workmate showed up with his new truck? Probably not.

And that’s the bottom line here. We are all after power in different forms. Be it money, be it land, access to resources or just status in our peer group. What I’ve found is that a religiously trained (or ‘spiritual’) person is no different. No, all they do is give a righteous cover to their personal ambition. They live in a delusion. Materialism is bad, they will say, but they are fine with your donation of money so they can buy a bigger missionary compound in Southeast Asia. And, under the fluff of my own pursuit of love was the same sexual motivation of all men.

I hated when a physiatrist summarized my obsession with the impossibility as being a “sexual attraction” and dismissed it initially as a woman who knew nothing of my heart as a man of God. But now I realized this is undoubtedly the correct assessment. Men want sexually attractive women and women want high status men. This is an essential part of our nature—a matter of survival for our genes—a young healthy woman is able to bear children and a wealthy or connected man can give them much more than a thirty year old living in Milton.

I’ve moved on from Milton, but cannot move on from the reality I have encountered head on, we’re sexual creatures living in material reality and can’t escape this by denial. I had been better to learn this decades ago rather than cling to a naive notion of love where it ends like a storybook. But I am now living the best life available to me and hope that my wife is happy with her decision. She’s won my heart asking for the “simple and happy life” and now I want to give her that and everything else wonderful this world offers. The best thing we gained was the child born almost a year ago now…

It’s never too late to live the life that you should—which is more about perspective than what you possess—even if you were denied love for being thirty years old and living in Milton.

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.

Naboth’s Vineyard: A Biblical Mirror to the Injustice of Land Theft in Palestine

A disturbing Penn State poll conducted in 2024 revealed that 83% of Israelis support ethnic cleansing, with nearly half expressing approval for the complete killing of Palestinians in Gaza.

This level of consensus is chilling, arguably surpassing the public support for such policies in Nazi Germany between 1933 and 1945. The roots of this sentiment can be traced to the founding of Israel itself, where Zionist militias employed tactics of rape, murder, and terrorism to expel Palestinians from land they had inhabited for centuries. This violent dispossession undermines any claim to respect for property rights—a principle often championed by those who defend Israel’s actions.

The hypocrisy is particularly stark among American conservatives, who in one breath decry property taxes and champion the sanctity of life—down to the frozen embryo—yet in the next, justify the deaths of Palestinian women and children as “deserved” because 2% of Gaza’s men resisted occupation. This contradiction mirrors the selective outrage of a nation founded on the cry of “no taxation without representation,” yet which now supports a cruel occupying colonial power denying Palestinians self-determination and basic human rights.

The erasure of Palestinian identity is a key tool in this moral failure, with many Zionists claiming Palestinians “never existed” despite historical evidence to the contrary. Palestine is referenced as far back as Shakespeare’s Othello (1603): “I know a lady in Venice would have walked barefoot to Palestine for a touch of his nether lip.” Early Zionist cookbooks, from the 1920s (to teach European settlers how to use local spices and oils unfamiliar to them) have “Palestine” in the title acknowledging the region’s distinct cultural heritage.

https://blog.nli.org.il/en/hoi_cooking_in_palestine/

This ongoing effort to remove inhabitants echoes a biblical story of greed and injustice:

Some time later there was an incident involving a vineyard belonging to Naboth the Jezreelite. The vineyard was in Jezreel, close to the palace of Ahab king of Samaria. Ahab said to Naboth, ‘Let me have your vineyard to use for a vegetable garden, since it is close to my palace. In exchange I will give you a better vineyard or, if you prefer, I will pay you whatever it is worth.’ But Naboth replied, ‘The Lord forbid that I should give you the inheritance of my ancestors.’ So Ahab went home, sullen and angry because Naboth the Jezreelite had said, ‘I will not give you the inheritance of my ancestors.’ He lay on his bed sulking and refused to eat. His wife Jezebel came in and asked him, ‘Why are you so sullen? Why won’t you eat?’ He answered her, ‘Because I said to Naboth the Jezreelite, “Sell me your vineyard; or if you prefer, I will give you another vineyard in its place.” But he said, “I will not give you my vineyard.”’ Jezebel his wife said, ‘Is this how you act as king over Israel? Get up and eat! Cheer up. I’ll get you the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite.’ So she wrote letters in Ahab’s name, placed his seal on them, and sent them to the elders and nobles who lived in Naboth’s city with him. In those letters she wrote: ‘Proclaim a day of fasting and seat Naboth in a prominent place among the people. But seat two scoundrels opposite him and have them bring charges that he has cursed both God and the king. Then take him out and stone him to death.’
1 Kings 21:1-10 NIV

This evil plan succeeded, and Naboth was murdered for his land with the complicity of a manipulated mob. The parallels to modern times are striking: Palestinians are dehumanized as “wild,” “barbaric,” or “terrorists,” just as Naboth was falsely accused to justify his execution. In the West Bank unarmed Palestinians are being driven off their land—even a US citizen was recently beaten to death by settlers. Jezebel and Ahab eventually faced divine judgment, but not before their treachery destroyed an innocent man. Today’s leaders, spurred by similar greed and power, rely on a complicit public—modern “useful idiots”—to enable ethnic cleansing and cultural erasure.

Suspicion surrounds the events of October 7, 2023, when Hamas launched a devastating attack on Israel. Reports indicate that IDF guards were ordered to stand down from their normal patrols an hour before the incursion, despite Gaza being one of the most heavily surveilled regions in the world. This raises questions about whether the attack was truly a surprise. Historical parallels, like the shorting of airline stocks days before the September 11 attacks, suggest insider knowledge rather than direct orchestration. While there’s no concrete evidence that intelligence agencies planned the October 7 attack, circumstantial factors—such as the “dancing Israelis” linked to Mossad during 9/11—fuel speculation that Israel’s intelligence may have known of Hamas’s plans and allowed them to proceed. Unlike conspiracy theories that overcomplicate events, the simpler explanation is that the attack was permitted to serve as a pretext for escalating military action.

This pattern of exploiting crises is not new. The 9/11 attacks, carried out primarily by Saudi nationals, were used to justify the invasion of Iraq, despite no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the plot. The invasion served special interests seeking to eliminate a regional rival, much as Israel’s current actions align with the Likud party’s long-standing goal of a “final solution” for Palestinian territories. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who had covertly supported Hamas to weaken Palestinian unity, likely saw the October 7 attack as an opportunity to galvanize public support for extreme measures. By allowing Hamas’s unprecedented success, he manufactured consent for policies that would otherwise be unthinkable.

The world’s leaders rarely let a crisis go to waste. Through propaganda, they direct public anger to serve their agendas, erasing the humanity of the oppressed in the process. Just as Naboth was slandered and killed for his land, Palestinians face cultural erasure and violence, enabled by a global audience too quick to accept the narrative of their dehumanization. To learn from history, we must discern the truth and reject the lies that justify such atrocities.

	Linda on Spectacle.
	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

Irregular Ideation

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

Truth