There are many ways to get things wrong and one of those ways is to detach the law from its most foundational purpose. That is a part of a legalistic mindset—which always will end up producing bad interpretation and misapplication of law.
Law is not an entity separate unto itself or something stand alone. It is a political tool, a guide or instrument for application of an agreed upon principle or cultural value, and application of the intended use requires a common set of assumptions to the creator. It cannot float in space—never treated as an independent truth—it must be moored to a mission or the common good.
It’s the law!!!
I’ve been in conversations recently where some involved are in denial of the political nature of the law and treat it as if the words on a page somehow have their own life. It is a misunderstanding of language. There is nothing static or unassailable about any written code. Everything depends on having an interpreter with values they are similar or basically the same as the originator of the law—the power of law, therefore, is in the interpretation and application.
When a person assumes that the law can speak for itself they’re delusional, they don’t grasp what law is or what it is for at a very basic level and end up using it to create a system of legalistic prescription rather than understand it through a practical lens. They have essentially made dead words (applied in any way they want or are most familiar with) a focus rather than cutting through to the underlying principles that make correct application possible. Their obsession over the letter of the law comes at the expense of following the spirit behind it.
Most people can’t read cursive let alone know what the founders truly intended.
This is what the Pharisees did and Jesus corrected. He didn’t question the legality of his servants breaking Sabbath rules, rather he gave an example of when David did what was unlawful (only lawful for the priests) to show exceptional circumstances allowed a written law to be set aside. It is at this point Jesus declared: “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” (Mark 2:27 NIV) This is a higher principle not ever stated in the law but describes a purpose of the law that cannot be separated from the application.
Biblical law may not be relevant to matters of the US Constitution, but both the law of Moses and the law of the Constitution were established to safeguard a nation. It was a law for the common good of the people and not something absolutely set in stone. And, in fact, in the earliest days of the US, it was a matter of disagreement how much power should be in the judiciary—which led to the Judiciary Act of 1802 and to courts being dissolved by Thomas Jefferson.
The point being is the law can’t be properly handled apart from the foundation it is built upon. Law should serve the common good and needs a reset if it goes astray and ends up becoming a cumbersome burden that is in the way of pragmatic concerns. Letter of the law people enforce a system for sake of the system alone—they claim the slightest deviation will destroy everything good and right—and end up with ridiculous results.
Don’t cross the street!
Suppose a child is told not to cross a street by their parent. It is a busy highway and too risky for them to cross. That’s the law and it is a good one. However, if some unusual event were to happen, a real emergency, is it important that the child remain on their side of the road even at risk of death?
Those on the legalistic side would argue the law is what it is. And that making a change based on this circumstance will only lead to more exceptions being made until nothing is left. This is a slippery slope fallacy based on an assumption there is no authority that is higher than the law and that the system we is basically optimized. But this idea that the current regime represents some perfect balance that should not ever be challenged is dumb. There is nothing sacrosanct about the current business as usual.
Many today catastrophize about the end of the US Constitution like they did under Lincoln.
A system of checks and balances requires some dispute and conflict. Activist judges that obstruct the role of elected leaders— with an ever expanding definition of “due process” at our expense—hinder progress and might need to be checked.
Worse yet, when the attention is selective. It is nothing but loopholes for some and the lawfare for others. Which is the irony of legalists. They apply a withering standard for others while always finding exemptions for themselves—they may declare “nobody is above the law” and yet are always given an excuse when it is their turn.
There is a place for precedent or principle, tradition is a better guide than ideology, but then there is a time when a deterioration of values and good faith application bogs the country down and justice becomes slave to a system of perverse priorities. It is when the application of law no longer serves the common good, but only the lawyers, corrupt prosecutors and jurists who all gain at our expense. The legal experts claim to uphold the law and yet undermine public trust with their shenanigans that defy our values.
Lawless regimes
Law is a tool, and the hands wielding it are what matter more than what is written in it. Words on a page are a weak defense when those tasked with applying them are evil or compromised. A hammer can be used by a carpenter to build or by a criminal to kill and law is no different. A nation of attorneys is potentially as lawless as country without a written law and enforcement mechanism—our moral constitution matters more than a jot and tittle legalism.
Jesus took on the legal system of his day and not to abolish the law. No, he exposed the experts. They strained on gnats while swallowing camels, missed the forest for the trees, and are like those today who will punish us with regulations while rewarding those who flout our laws. We are shown no mercy while simultaneously the favorites of the political establishment need not worry about a day in court. Law for thee, not for me. It serves the elites, not the people.
Law is about setting boundaries and due process depends on the situation. When the British invaded, in 1812, there was never a thought of applying the Bill of Rights for those who rose in defense of the nation. In times of war the due process is pointing rifles at the invader. And foreign gang members who crossed into this country illegally shouldn’t be allowed to abuse asylum laws. Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus or due process for citizens during the Civil War—a free ride home for non-citizens is a great deal compared to Union Army detention.
Lincoln was hated by Democrats for his use of executive power
Having dealt with the USCIS, I am not a big fan of paperwork and most especially not when they offhandedly reject your mother-in-law’s tourist visa (as they have done for years, see the time stamps) after all the fees are paid and a visit to the US embassy—and you can rest assured there is no grandstanding by US politicians about due process and assumed right to be in the country on the behalf of those who do it the right way.
No law might be more fair than our currently convoluted regime—that does many times more to protect gang members than grandmas merely wanting to visit their children or grandchildren. Sure, we can’t take lawful order for granted and we deal with this inconvenience for the sake of stability and security, but when we show excess concern for those who broke the law while then applying the letter to those trying to abide by it the law has become an immoral instrument and the current corrupt application of law should be set aside for a saner approach.
The perfect law is no law…
In an ideal world there would be no laws, no borders, no governments. Instead we would have a law written on hearts—where we voluntarily only do good for people based on internalized values—and have no need for legislation, enforcement or courts. Borders would be unnecessary and airport screening an unthinkable invasive of personal space. This is why we have a Bill of Rights to limit the power of government—more law tends to increase injustice rather than serve the common good.
In the end, just as the Judiciary Act of 1802 sought to realign the law with the common good by curbing an overreaching judiciary, we must continually ensure that our laws remain tools for justice, tethered to their foundational purpose of serving us, not as rigid idols that enslave us to legalism. We need to understand the limits of resources and get our priorities right.
Last time around, I dismantled the myth of indestructible buildings—people dream of granite fortresses, their mental models blind to necessary trade-offs—meanwhile ballooning the cost of new construction and keeping more people are stuck in older less safe buildings. That same flawed thinking now fuels a frenzy over air disasters and my wife’s legitimate grumble over dental bills and paperwork that could choke a horse. Whether it’s planes plummeting or crowns now costing thousands, folks cling to busted models—piles of regulations, their wild conspiracies, or broken systems—that splinter when reality bites. In my truss design world, I double-check software because it’s half-baked; we should also scrutinize the narratives and red tape the same way, and not add more wreckage.
Air Disasters and the Partisan Haze
The wacky left, not to be outdone by the kook conspiracy right, keeps blaming air disasters on deregulation. Start with January 29, 2025: a Bombardier CRJ700, American Airlines Flight 5342, slammed into an Army Black Hawk over D.C.’s Potomac River, claiming 67 lives. Then a Canadian Dash 8 skidded off a snowy Quebec runway—no deaths, but headlines aplenty.
Now the April 10, 2025, Bell 206L-4 chopper crash in New York’s Hudson River, six gone, including Siemens exec Agustín Escobar and his family. X posts scream Trump’s crew gutted FAA rules. Never let truth get in the way of a partisan narrative, right? But the facts don’t bend. D.C. hit nine days into his second term—too soon for policy shifts to ripple. The Hudson chopper passed a March 1, 2025 inspection, clean as a new nail. NTSB points to D.C.’s air traffic staffing woes, Canada’s pilot error, New York’s likely mechanical failure—not slashed budgets.
Stats cut the haze. FAA data shows U.S. aviation incidents down since 2020, though Potomac’s toll spiked fatalities. Crashes in media hubs like D.C. or NYC feel like a deluge, but it’s perception, not reality. I’ve seen this hysteria before—folks panicked over food processing fires, but as someone who supplies building components we see many ‘fire jobs’ and not a surge. Fires due to hot bearings, bad wiring, heaters or dust are quite common and to be expected. The funny thing none of these food processing fire alarmists reported on the new feed mill near me—non-confirming news doesn’t go viral.
Then the tinfoil-hat crowd spins BlackRock plots because Escobar was aboard. What are the chances a Siemens exec’s on a chopper? Pretty high, honestly—they’re the ones dropping $500 a seat, not me touring the harbor for free, with my family, on the Staten Island Ferry. BlackRock’s got stakes everywhere; a link’s no bombshell. As far as the in-flight breakup of the Bell helicopter, my pilot brother snorted, “Never buy an air frame that does 30+ takeoffs and landings per day.” That is to say there’s a difference between a vehicle with highway miles and the one used as a weekend racer. Seized gearbox or stress fractures, not sabotage. The SEAL pilot’s fuel call was logistics, not a scream. Yet they weave a blockbuster rather than look at a shop log.
This echoes the indestructible building myth—deregulation won’t make planes drop tomorrow, nor do cabals rig bolts. More FAA rules don’t sharpen mechanics’ wrenches, just like overbuilt trusses don’t scoff at storms. That ELD mandate for trucks? It jacked costs, no safer roads. D.C.’s staffing gaps brewed for years; New York’s airspace is a madhouse, and always has been. Good design—trusses or aviation—leans on more clarity: sharpen skills, focused goals, while also acknowledging the risk baked in. Pilots should scan skies, not bury their heads in binders. But folks expect oceans to swallow us if one desk job’s cut, their models deaf to reality’s groan. Failures aren’t a secret plot nor will more rules prevent them all.
Healthcare’s Paperwork Quagmire
That same broken model—thinking more rules fix it all—bleeds us dry in healthcare, where compliance piles up and costs push higher. My Filipino wife got sticker shock: Over $2,000 for a crown! What??? Her gut said yank the tooth, but the doc—and me—aren’t keen on losing one of those original equipment food grinders. Before we hit the chair, she was annoyed by those butt-covering forms—shields for liabilities (“We asked about novacaine allergies!”) and traps to hunt you down if you don’t pay their yacht lease.
Earlier this year, my son’s middle school emailed another form, they’re playing dental cop to prove his exam. We lucked out—they took our word his Philippines checkup happened, sparing me need to send their paperwork to Baguio for my in-laws to wrangle. There, we’d stroll into a clinic, no appointment, $20 for a cleaning or filling. Ain’t swanky, but it’s sterile, does the job, and fits a $8/day wage world. Here, insurance bloats costs like student loans—dentists hike prices ‘cause the check’s guaranteed. The poor folks get Medicaid, rich get their implants—me: never had dental insurance in my life, other than my couple year subscription to a scam “discount” that did squat unless I was already shelling out.
Since the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was turned into law, healthcare costs per capita soared from $10,620 in 2010 to $14,570 in 2023—37.2% up, inflation-adjusted, per CMS. Life expectancy sagged, 78.7 to 77.5 years, says CDC, while costs kept climbing. Rather than keep your own doctor was the promise, choice is diminished. Big players like UnitedHealthcare—had controlled 15% market share, Statista—grew hungrier and doubled it. Locally, Evangelical Community Hospital is now under WellSpan, and Geisinger sold to Kaiser Permanente, a $95 billion beast, both 2023 deals. Less choice, more denials, like truss software spitting out only one overpriced and deficient design.
It is easy to forget the undemocratic way the ACA was formed. It was rushed to get around the results of a special election that would cost Democrats their filibuster-proof Senate. The Democrat Congress rammed through a trainwreck bill to circumvent their loss of Ted Kennedy’s seat. The last thing we needed, in healthcare, was another layer of management. Upset Americans—54% of the country wanting repeal—rose up in the mid-terms in opposition to this government takeover of their healthcare choice.
Unfortunately the oligarchy won and we were stuck with a deeply flawed bill, sold with lies, passed in the dark of night, that nobody wanted—results in more mergers while costs continue to explode.
Obama, getting creative to deal with the botched rollout of HealthCare.gov, created what was called United States Digital Service to fix the issues. This basically gave the Executive Branch a backdoor access to the newly minted government agency that was convenient for the Democrats at the time it was formed. And this, ironically, is now what gives DOGE the authority to do what they have been doing over the past few months. Whether you see DOGE as a phoenix rising from the ashes or a monster coming from the abyss—you have Obama to thank for it.
It’s like engineers, for compliance, ditching practical talks for nonsense specs that lead to an incoherent mess of conflicting interpretation—it produces more hassle for everyone downstream, not a sturdier roof or better structure. This compliance Kabuki—fancy waiting rooms, school nurse cops—doesn’t make better teeth or safer streets, it just bloats our bills and increases our taxes for nothing in return. Philippines clinics run lean on cash, keep it real. Here, we’re buried under a pile of paper.
Good design—trusses, planes, healthcare—cuts the fat, bets on need of good judgment over more forms. Models that preach more rules will save us or seeing secret plots are as off as thinking properly engineered roofs can never cave. The FAA didn’t fix Boeing’s focus on DEI over properly installed bolts in doors and the ACA only added to the cost of healthcare. We must quit chasing fixes that will only add more dead weight to an already strained structure—and ask: what’s propping this whole mess up? And why’s it heavy enough to crush a man’s soul?
A Different Blueprint: Stripping Away the Myths
Things on the periphery are tough to flesh out, like trying to find out what is happening beyond the event horizon of a black hole. We all live in this big bubble—a commonly shared safe space—where folks will bicker over set topics, blind to how both sides are tangled in a bigger myth. The structures we take for granted, holding us up, are just assumptions we gotta question. These bad models—rules to save planes, forms to fix teeth—are flawed assumptions like thinking buildings never fall. If we want to see reality clear, we’ve got to strip away these biases, prejudices, blind spots, layer by layer. That’s my design philosophy: ask silly questions, and then take ‘em seriously. I mean, why don’t banks handle healthcare instead of employers? Why can’t we get checkups at the local bar? No rule says payers have to be governments or bosses.
Most folks can’t see past their battle lines, let alone a third path. But if we look beyond the forms we know, we might find a better way. It’s about exploring our foundations—digging into the functional fixedness of old ideologies, dusty processes, and our creaky systems. In truss work, I don’t simply trust software math ‘til I test it; in life, and I don’t buy models ‘til I poke ‘em. We can do better by imagining something different—say, healthcare that’s cash-simple, like Baguio, or an aviation culture that trusts pilots over paper. Models preaching conspiracy plots or encouraging more red tape are as wrong as thinking roofs don’t cave.
In Japan, the electronic toll system on the Tomei Expressway and other routes crashed for 38 hours across Tokyo and six prefectures. The toll gates froze, smart interchanges shut, congestion piled up. And the operator, Central Nippon Expressway Company, had no fix in sight, so they threw open the gates, let drivers pass free, and simply asked them to pay later online. Most places, you’d expect folks to floor it and forget it. But over 24,000 drivers—some say 28,000—went online and paid up, no cops, no fines. An honor system.
The test of civilization?
That’s not just a country; that’s a different approach to problem solving. They didn’t lean on a coercion model—chasing violators or piling on rules. The culture is what made the difference. They could trust people to square up and people did. It’s a glimpse of what happens when you question our own status quo. Why are our systems so heavy, so distrustful, in the first place? Why does a Christian nation need government to solve all problems yet Japan does not? This may be a difference between our individualistic frontier mindset and their group harmony formed of rice cultivation. But it’s also the communal approach of Amish as well.
Mutual aid in Amish country is organic, not institutionalized, they don’t need bulky and wasteful organizations. They have built an identity together (like the Japanese have) and thus they voluntarily go along with the program. This may sound stifling, but is it really? Americans pay a boatload of taxes so that their bought off national leadership can bomb Gaza’s hospitals. Did we ever vote for that? No. The general public is just as indoctrinated and controlled by ideologies as a strict religious sect. The big difference is that Amish get their barn back days after a fire whereas the rest of us will spend the year sifting through insurance paperwork.
A sustainable future requires effective and efficient resource allocation that does not rely on costly bureaucracy or enforcement agencies. Governance is best internalized—something we do voluntarily as part of our collective identity or being part of a larger group. This will require discarding models and myths that aren’t beneficial. This idea that the world’s problems are either solved by some undefined ideal regulatory regime or are all caused by it’s evil twin of a secret world spanning scheme is simply fantasy that prevents reasonable discussions and pushes away from solutions that will better harness our human potential.
Cooperation doesn’t need to be top down or cumbersome and artificial. No, love for our own and self-sacrifice love is as coded into human DNA as conflict. And we should be taking a closer look at Japanese and Amish blueprint. Honor, a common code of ethics, shared cultural values, an internalized joint identity and being respectful to others can’t outsourced. Diversity is only strength when it harmonizes and follows the same tune. It is a combination of building a familial trust, deeper human relationships, and a societal mission that is worthy of fuller investment—not more programs, systems and rules.
It was November 29, 1900, and fans filled the stadium in San Francisco for the annual Thanksgiving Day game between California Golden Bears and Stanford Cardinal. Some, not wanting to pay the entry fee (one dollar then, $40 in today’s money), climbed on a nearby glass factory roof to get their view of the action on the field.
The newly built factory roof collapsed about twenty minutes into the game. One hundred people fell as it gave way and plunged four stories down—many landing on the 500° F oven below. It was a horrific scene. Young people being cooked alive. What happened? The building roof wasn’t designed to hold a mass of spectators. It failed. Those who had climbed up were oblivious or did not have enough concern for the stress they were adding to the structure.
This tragedy wasn’t just a failure of design; it revealed a deeper misconception that buildings should be invincible, a myth that shapes our reactions to collapses even today. It goes further than engineering or physical buildings as well. Our models of reality are oversimplified at best and flat-out wrong in too many cases.
There is a common misconception and an unrealistic expectation about structures—many people seem to assume they are like blocks of granite. From those who believe that every building collapse is a conspiracy to those who think every failure demands stricter government regulations, the myth of an indestructible building continues due to a lack of understanding of engineering and the limitations.
Design Limits Are Not Defects
One key misunderstanding is design limits. Engineering is not about making a building too strong to ever fail. Unless we’re talking about the Great Pyramids, it’s all about trying to meet certain established parameters. An engineered building is designed to meet the expected conditions as defined by regional building codes. If the wind, snow, or loads exceed the designated standards, then there will likely be a collapse.
Earlier this year, after a heavy snowfall in upstate New York, many buildings had their roofs cave in (including this fire hall) because the weight of the snow was that much greater than the design weight. Sure, most engineers build an extra safety margin into their components, but eventually these limits are too far exceeded and you’ll end up with a tangled mess. This is why there are sideline roof shoveling businesses in these places where large snow accumulations are a regular occurrence.
Sure, code could force people to build to a much higher standard, making a collapse due to snow load virtually impossible. But this would increase the costs so much that it would price many people out of building a new house or barn. Engineering is all about compromise, more precisely about making the right compromises given the expected conditions. Yes, there is a case for making adjustments based on observation or after studies, but ultimately we build for what will work most of the time.
More Is Not Always Better
In the aftermath of the earthquake that had struck Myanmar and neighboring Thailand, there was a comment made to me in a chat hoping for more layers of regulation. This is a sentiment, in the specific context of rapid development of Bangkok, that seems more reflexive than reflective. It is a progressive impulse to believe that more interventions and rules are the answer.
The collapse of an unfinished tower in Bangkok, during the earthquake, sparks questions about building codes. Was it missing sheer walls? Did the contractor rush to ‘top it off’ quickly? I want to know what the investigation finds.
But, for me, as someone who works in the construction industry and has occasionally needed to sift through these layers, I could not disagree more. Sure, better regulations may be needed. However, legalism doesn’t work in building standards any better than it does in churches. Sure, you need a code of some kind. And yet onerous regulation will add to the cost of construction, not necessarily improving the end results, and only making new housing less accessible.
It is, at best, the same trade-off discussion we can have about self-driving cars and the need for LIDAR. Sure, this expensive laser ranging system may marginally improve the results, but at what cost? Self-driving cars with cameras alone are already safer than human drivers. Keeping these systems at a price that is affordable will save more lives than pricing them out of reach for average people. It is, therefore, optimal to rollout the less expensive and safer tech even if it could be slightly improved.
At worst there is only more expense and no benefit to more layers of red tape. The real problem with rules is that they are written in language that needs interpretation. Unlike a classroom theoretical setting, in the real world you can’t just memorize the correct answers and pass the test. The ability to make a judgment call is far more important than adding to the pile of regulations. More rules can mean the more confusion and the truly critical matters get lost in the mess.
I see it over and over again, when different customers send the same job for a quote and all of them interpreting the engineering specifications their own way. It is the tire swing cartoon, a funny illustration of when the customer wants something simple and yet the whole process distorts the basic concept until it is unrecognizable. That is where my mind goes when we talk about adding layers. Is it increasing our safety or merely adding more points of failure?
This one stuck with me and should be standard equipment in every design department. I first saw it as a child while visiting the engineering department of the construction company my dad worked for.
Some of it is just that some people are plain better at their jobs than others with the very same credentials. I am impressed by some engineers, architects, contractors, and code officers—not so much by others. I’m willing to bet the intuition of some Amish builders is probably more trustworthy than a team of engineering students’ textbook knowledge, full of theory, with no real or practical world experience. In the end any system is only ever as good as the users.
Theory Is Not Reality
My work relies on truss design software. I enter information and it does those boring calculations. When I started, I assumed that it was more sophisticated than it really is. I thought every load was accounted for and nothing assumed. But very soon the limits of this tool started to reveal themselves. It is only as accurate or true to reality as the engineers and developers behind it—and on the abilities of the user (me) understanding the gaps in the program.
When it comes to mental models—the kind of physics involved in engineering—only a few people seem able to conceptualize the force vectors. Things like triangulation, or compression and tension loads, are simply something I get. Maybe from my years of being around construction or that curiosity I had, as a child, that made me want to learn what holds a stone arch up or why there are those cables running through that concrete bridge deck. My model was built off of this childhood of building Lincoln Log towers (arranging them vertically) and occasionally making mini earthquakes.
I’m exasperated by this expectation that people have for skyscrapers to be indestructible or to topple over in the same manner of a tree—as if they’re a solid object. It also seems that the big difference between static and dynamic loads is lost on most people. They don’t understand why a building could start to pancake, one floor smashing the next, or how twisting due to extreme heat could undermine the structural integrity of a building without ever melting the steel. Of course this has to do with their beliefs or mistrusts that are not related to engineering—nevertheless it shows their completely deficient understanding of how the science works.
The concept in their head is off, their brain modeling is inaccurate, and their resolution may be so low they simply can’t grasp what the reality is. You try to explain basic things and their eyes glaze over—sort of like when Pvt. John Bowers tried to explain why the plants need water, and not the electrolytes in Brawndo, in the movie Idiocracy. Ignorant people will scoff before they accept a view different from their model of the world. The theory they believe rules over all evidence or better explanation.
On the other side are those who trust every established system without understanding it. They “believe science” and see more as an answer to every question. More rules, a larger enforcement apparatus, faith in their experts, without any feel for the problems encountered by the professionals or those in the field. If they had, they would question much more than they do. Human judgment is still at the base of it all. Or at least that is what the lead engineer told me while we discussed the limits of software and the need to be smarter than the tool.
Not even AI can give us the right balance of efficiency in design versus safety factor or what should be written in the code. It may be a better reflection of our own collective intelligence than any individual, but our own limits to see the world how it actually is are not erased by the machines we create. We are amplified, never eliminated, by the tools we create. So we’ll be stuck wrestling with our myths and theories until we take a final breath—only our flaws are indestructible.
Models of a Messy World
If truss software taught me anything, it’s that no model nails reality perfectly—not beams, not buildings, not life. We lean on these frameworks anyway, because the world’s too wild to face without a map. But just like those fans on that San Francisco roof in 1900, we often climb onto flimsy assumptions, mistaking them for solid ground. The myth of an indestructible building is just one piece of a bigger distortion: we think our mental models—of faith, of power, of people—are unshakable truths, when they’re really sketches, some sharper than others, of a reality we’ll never fully pin down.
Misconceptions can have deadly consequences.
Take religion. For some, it’s a cathedral of certainty, every verse a load-bearing beam explaining why the world spins. Others see it as a rickety scaffold, patched together to dodge hard questions. Both are models—ways to grapple with life’s big “why.” Politics is messier still. It’s like designing a city where everyone’s got their own codebook. One side swears by tight regulations, convinced they’ll keep the streets safe. Another group demands open plans, betting that freedom builds stronger foundations. Both sides act like their own ideological model is bulletproof, shouting past each other while the ground shifts—economies wobble, climates change, and people clash.
Then there’s prejudice, the shoddiest model of all. It’s like sizing up a beam by its color instead of its strength. Prejudice, always a shortcut to save us from the effort of real thought, fails because it’s static, blind to the dynamic load of human individuals. Good perception, like good engineering, adjusts to what’s real, not what’s assumed.
All these—religion, politics, prejudice—come down to how we see. Perception’s the lens we grind to make sense of the blur. Some folks polish it daily, questioning what they’re fed. Others let it cloud over, stuck on a picture that feels safe but warps the view. I think of those fans in 1900, not asking if the roof could hold them. They didn’t mean harm—they just saw what they wanted: a free seat, a clear view. We do the same, building lives on models we don’t test, whether it’s a god we trust, a vote we cast, or a snap judgment we make. The distortion isn’t just in thinking buildings won’t fall—it’s in believing our way of seeing the world is indestructible.
What makes a model reliable? Not that it’s right—none are. It’s that it bends without breaking, learns from cracks, holds up when life piles on the weight. In construction, we double-check measurements because we know plans lie. In life, we’d do well to double-check our certainties—about the divine, the ballot, the stranger next door. The San Francisco collapse wasn’t just about a roof giving way; it was about people trusting a picture that didn’t match the world. We’re still climbing those roofs, chasing clear views on shaky frames. Maybe the only thing we can build to last is a habit of asking: what’s holding this up? And what happens when it falls?
The point of Trump’s tariffs is to get rid of all tariffs. I can feel the blank stares of my ideological and indoctrinated friends who are hyperventilating about a blip in stock prices and loses for billionaires.
I get it, Libertarians, you really do not want the government to do anything and Thomas Sowell said stuff about tariffs being bad, so in unison you bleat: “Tariffs are taxes!”
But your sloganeering is not argumentation and—while I generally believe less is more in the case of government—I’m stuck here in the real world with Trump.
Economic theory has it’s place, as do ideals, and yet this isn’t a matter of Sowell said it, I believe it, that settles it.
Marxists also believe their man’s theory will work if properly applied. Ideological people can’t accept when their theory doesn’t work in reality, they will always insist “that wasn’t true [insert ideology here]” and continue on their merry way muttering that next time it will work—if they could just brainwash more children and eliminate more enemies of the revolution. There’s never a reevaluation in light of the actual evidence.
True X hasn’t been tried.
So, without further ado, let’s dive into where free trade fails and Thomas Sowell after we do that…
Can Hell Be Made Worse?
After the devastating earthquake of 2010, I joined a group of young people on a trip to Haiti. It was a Christian mission and hosted by a Haitian pastor. This grandfatherly man had, at one point, been in business and ran a factory manufacturing clothes.
While I’m not going to make a case against charity or giving, there is often a cost that is unseen and a greater dependency created in the end. The Haitian pastor was forced to shutter his operation and lay off all of his employees after the combination of cheap imports and donations made it impossible to compete in the marketplace.
But the even sadder story was in a place in the country called “little Africa” where rice farmers tried to make ends meet. No, they were never rich. However, they had scraped a living out of cultivation up until Bill Clinton started to dump subsidized American rice on the Haitian market. These people were desperate. They mobbed our delivery of a bit of relief and aid.
I know, I know, this isn’t real free trade. But it is the kind of situation we are in. Putting our favorite theories and fandom aside, and ideals that could possibly work if all abided by the same rules or assumptions, we don’t live in that fantasy land. In the real world, it is like Haiti where subsidized products are exported and some will disproportionately suffer consequences.
Yes, in theory, Haiti still benefits, as a whole, from importing cheap or free stuff. But we can also make the argument that this kind of unfair trade has undermined a situation that was already fragile. A government that would protect Haitian industries would not let subsidized products be dumped without something stabilizing in return.
Thomas Sowell vs Donald Trump
Sowell is a great economist and provides a good answer to ‘progressive’ theories. His being a guest on the Rush Limbaugh show has made him a favorite of conservatives—wanting validation for their free market and small government views.
As an academic, Sowell’s work dealt mostly with economic theory and to argue against all tariffs he uses abstraction “protectionism hurts market efficiency” and that they don’t solve issues like wealth gap, that they favor special interests, and retaliation against tariffs hurts exports, and they lead to long-term stagnation. And he may be right if we lived in a vacuum sealed petri dish.
Trump, by contrast, lives in the very messy world of politics and negotiations. He runs on instincts and intuition, not by intellectual exercises or writing papers or creating a set of principles. He comes in with the big ask, the threat or the bluff, trying to disrupt and even create a bit of anxiety in the other side, before eventually bringing this process to a resolution that makes all parties leave with a feeling like they’ve won.
This is how we got from the “fire and fury” rhetoric—with the political class and corporate media hyperventilating about this being a path to war—to Trump being the first US President to set foot in North Korea and then shaking hand of Kim Jong Un. It is just his method of changing the conversation or moving the Overton window. You can’t get from point A to point B without shaking up the old status quo a bit.
Trump isn’t ideological, like Sowell, or trying to live off a written in stone economic code of conduct. No, when he has leverage, or sees an opportunity, he uses it. There are many countries tariffing US goods. And our trade deficit is enormous. So why is it so out of line for our President to cry foul or use the threat of reciprocal tariffs in other to back these countries down and then get a better deal for his country?
Surely Sowell isn’t against pushing for the elimination of tariffs—which likely is the end game. And, furthermore, Trump’s brazen actions are far more likely to get results than the fine professor’s best lecture on economics. Already other countries are lining up to start talks about removing their unfair tariffs against the US. It is a game of musical chairs and you don’t want to be the last one looking for a seat.
Power, Principles, and Persuasion
Marxism is about the application of power, Libertarians are about strict adherence to a set of principles, but Trump is different. He is about persuasion.
Marxism is a hammer—raw power of the mob, trying to smashing the old order to hand control to the workers, or so it claims. In reality, it’s a machine for centralization: seize the levers, dictate terms, and dress it up as justice. Think Soviet bread lines or Mao’s famines—equality morphing into control. Libertarians, by contrast, wield a rulebook, not a fist. Their creed—liberty, markets, entirely hands off—is sacred, rigid as stone. Tariffs? Sacrilege. Sowell represents this. Marxism a power grab, and libertarianism a fortress of unattainable ideals—both are better to be left as theory rather than an approach to real world negotiations.
Marxism would’ve sparked a trade war, not talks; libertarianism would’ve let markets bleed out. Trump’s different—he’s making countries dance. China grumbles but hints at softening; the EU’s haggling too. Stocks have dipped, and Sowell’s costs loom, but the moves are now undeniable: Vietnam’s concessions, India’s play, Japan’s hustle. It’s not a system winning—it’s Trump, raw and loud, proving persuasion trumps power or principle. He’s bending the world his way, one bluff at a time. He is about persuasion—messy, unscripted, a vibe that bends the room.
Tariffs are the threat, but trade that is truly free and fair is the actual goal. And Trump is further along in achieving this simply for his boldness alone. Maybe he’s not doing it the ‘right’ way or by conventional means, yet who says that we can’t try a new approach to get some better results than we’ve been getting? The people who have been leaving the American worker behind tot decades now? As my 13-year-old son would say: Let him cook!
The American right was outraged by Ruby Ridge when Federal agents killed a man’s dogs, son and wife and the deadly raid of the Branch Davidians that killed 76 in the cult—including 20-28 children.
And, indeed, Randy Weaver had basically been entrapped by the FBI and was just a guy who wanted to left alone. And there is no indication the Branch Davidians would have ever killed their own children.
But the ATF says they were saving children in the Waco, Texas incident. Here’s a direct quote of Janet Reno in her testimony to Congress afterwards:
We did everything we could to avoid loss of life… I thought it was the best way to save the lives of those inside, particularly the children.
So, since she said it, we believe it, right? We can blame Mr Weaver and David Koresh for what transpired. They broke the law and it is, therefore, their own criminal actions that provoked a Federal response. If you don’t want a deadly raid—sell all of your firearms and live at peace with the progressives that rule over you!
Many in this country would cheer bans on ‘assault weapons’ and celebrate as their ‘far-right’ neighbors were gunned down for failing to comply. It would be just deserts, a direct consequence of someone who was not keeping pace with civilization, and their blood on their own hands.
Of course, I would strongly disagree. The land and the rights therein belong to we the people, not the government. People have a right to defend themselves. And if you back people into a corner do not be surprised if they come out swinging.
There is an obvious lack of understanding about the plight of Palestinian people and their decades long struggle against settlers from Europe and around the world.
Zionism, supported by anti-Semitic British politician Lord Balfour, was essentially an equivalent to Hitler’s Madagascar plan. In that he wanted Jews to live anywhere but in his own country and thus declared that the Jews should have a homeland. The only problem being that the land chosen, called the British Mandate for Palestine, already had an indigenous population (of Muslims, Christians and native Jews) that were not enthused about being replaced.
Terrorism was initiated as a tactic by Zionists, who were absorbed into the Israeli state, and not Palestinians.
At first the fight between settlers and the Palestinians (meaning those who lived in that place before the Europeans arrived) was riots and evenly matched. But in time, with a brutal campaign of terror bombing and assassinations, including the murder of a Jewish settler later turned Anti-Zionist:
On June 30, 1924, Jacob Israël de Haan was assassinated in Jerusalem by members of the Haganah, a Zionist paramilitary organization. De Haan, born in 1881 in the Netherlands, had moved to Palestine in 1919 as a committed Zionist but became disillusioned with the movement’s secular nationalism and its treatment of the indigenous Arab population. He aligned himself with the ultra-Orthodox Haredi community, particularly under Rabbi Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld, and became a vocal anti-Zionist, advocating for cooperation with Arabs and opposing the establishment of a Jewish state. As a political spokesman for the Haredim, he worked to undermine Zionist efforts, including plans to meet with British officials in London to argue against Zionist policies.
The settler’s eventually got the upper hand in their conflict with the native population, declared statehood in 1948. Secured their claim with a Pearl Harbor style preemptive strike after Egypt closed the Straits of Turn in response to Israel’s downing of six Syrian aircraft. This Six-Day War is sold as being a miracle, but is really just a case of the most aggressive and ready to go side gaining an advantage before the enemy even had their pants on. The Zionist project has been very audacious from the start, relying on support of first the British Empire and now the US to keep alive, and there was never remorse for any hardship imposed or death caused.
So when I see yet another meme parroting Zionist propaganda, portraying settlers as civilized and all Gazans as monsters, it just makes me want to vomit. This is what I am talking about:
Prejudiced much?
It’s hard to know where to start breaking a statement like this down. Let’s start with just the facts: Israel has blockaded Gaza, since 2007, restricting the medical supplies, food, and fuel—directly endangering babies’ lives. The result is that 1 in 4 Gaza children under five faced acute malnutrition. There has been no effort to “save every baby” in Gaza—despite precision guided munitions, and every advantage, tens of thousands of Palestinian children have been killed and many more grievously wounded.
Second, the Isreali Defense Minister, Yoav Gallant, is on record calling Gazans “human animals” and has even vowed to “eliminate everything,” which is obviously a plan being carried out when you consider all of those deliberate strikes on the Gazan healthcare facilities:
…there were at least 136 strikes on at least 27 hospitals and 12 other medical facilities, claiming significant casualties among doctors, nurses, medics and other civilians and causing significant damage, if not complete destruction of civilian infrastructure.
Then the recent attack on ambulances and EMTs, the IDF brazenly lied about the circumstances of this war crime (exposed by a video) where these first responders were found with hands bound and executed. The IDF uses an AI system called ‘Lavander‘ to pick targets:
Two sources said that during the early weeks of the war they were permitted to kill 15 or 20 civilians during airstrikes on low-ranking militants. Attacks on such targets were typically carried out using unguided munitions known as “dumb bombs”, the sources said, destroying entire homes and killing all their occupants.
These are not the moves of a military or political establishment trying to save lives, that looks like a collective punishment or ethnic cleansing—because it is.
Netanyahu is a man who has sabotaged the two-state solution (by supporting Hamas) and there is little doubt he saw the October 7th attack as an opportunity to finally annex Gaza for Israeli settlers. There is little evidence that the Likud party even cares about their own casualties, other than to use them to paint Palestinians as monsters.
But what about those Gazans?
What if the shoe were on the other foot?
Surely these bloodthirsty terrorists who—did you hear about October 7th—went on a wild killing spree claiming the lives of 1,139 Israelis. See! Proof that they want to kill all the babies!
But let’s back up just a second. First of all, not everyone in Gaza participated in that—Hamas wasn’t elected nor does it represent all people in the strip. Second, how do we really know who killed who? There is ample evidence of friendly fire (I read Israeli news), you had IDF helicopter gunships unloading their ordinance on random traffic, panic, and also a possible implementation of the Hannibal directive or when the IDF will kill their own rather than let them become the bargaining chips for a prisoner exchange. In other words, political objectives are more important than human life.
Hamas made a calculated move. The only way they can get back people that the IDF took from them over the years is for them to have their own hostages. Israel has held about 4500 Palestinians. 310 in detention without any right to trial. And those who have gone to trial have about as much chance of fair treatment as Donald Trump does in front of a Manhattan jury—literally no chance.
So what would you do if your uncle, father son or brother were being indefinitely held by the Chinese occupation forces in Texas, wouldn’t you be tempted to find a way to get them back?
But what about the Bidas family?
The cute redhead boys?
What about them? How do you know they weren’t killed in an IDF airstrike? There was no independent autopsy to back the Israeli claims they were killed by their captors and this makes no sense whatsoever. Why would Hamas want dead bargaining chips? Why would they turn over the bodies if they murdered them in cold blood? And why is the Bidas family threatening to sue Netanyahu for using their tragedy to sell his bloody campaign?
Anyhow, just listen to what Hamas hostages have said about their own experience after being released. They were fed well and their sanitary needs were met, obviously it wasn’t a five star treatment and certainly not free of abuse, but this is a comparison and compare it to the credible allegations of Palestinian boys being raped by their guards in Israeli prisons.
In the end, neither side is a monolith. Israel has good and bad people, as does Gaza—Hamas doesn’t represent the population of Gaza any more than Netanyahu represents all of Israel nor does Zionism represent every Jew in the world. There are millions of Palestinians. Some may want to kill every Israeli. But then Netanyahu, the actual leader of Israel, has called the Gazans “Amalek” which is to say a people God instructed Biblical Israel to kill man, woman and child. So how is that not a call for extermination?
It’s just very strange to me that many who are so sympathetic to right-wing characters like Randy Weaver or those Waco cultists suddenly believe propaganda because it’s coming from Israel. Why are you carrying water for a foreign power that takes billions from us, sank one of our Navy ships in international waters, and gives us nothing in return?
We don’t need to pick a team here—let’s just oppose baby killing no matter who is doing it!
If Israel wanted to stop killing babies in Gaza it would.
Apparently the Snow White remake bombed at the box office. We could just go with the standard “get woke, go broke” traditionalist assessment. Rachel Zegler comes off as the female equivalent of Andrew Tate—as being angry, entitled, selfish and toxic—which isn’t appealing to a broad audience.
But, before we get into the remake, let’s talk a bit about the original Disney animation of the fairytale. The character deviates quite a bit from the Grimm version. For a start, the fair-skinned protagonist is half the age (7 rather than 14) and there’s no “true love’s kiss” in this original version. Furthermore, she’s a sort of blank slate archetype—not some ideal 1930s homemaker mothering a bunch of dwarfs. In short, the adaptation then was not completely true to the source material and created an image of feminity relevant to that time.
The Grimm version was darker in tone and featured a prince weirdly obsessed with a dead girl in a glass coffin. The dwarfs did not have distinct personalities. And Snow White awakened when the poisoned apple is dislodged from her throat when a servant carrying her coffin stumbles. And it was at this point the prince professes his love and proposes marriage—which she accepts.
The latest Disney live-action takes liberties in a very different direction. It is even less true to the original (other than elimination of the Disney romance) and reimagines Snow White being a sort of feminist militia leader who leads a bloodless insurrection against the usurping queen. But the “mirror mirror on the wall” remains and a poisoned apple—despite the heavy edit of the script where an empowered woman replaces the worn damsel in distress trope.
Why People Don’t Like Snow Woke
People enjoy new takes on old genres, like Shrek or Furiosa and also powerful female characters such as Ellen Ripley in Aliens, Sarah Connor in Terminator or even Katniss Everdeen in the Hunger Games. They were relatable, we saw them develop, circumstances made them tough to survive, and audiences loved them. What they don’t like is preachy dialogue or lack of any real character development. A Mary Sue, a hero with no weaknesses, is unrelatable. It is the problem with Superman and with the many woke adaptations of stories.
We like the image of a woman against the machine.
Christian movies have a tendency to be bad for the same reasons. They can come off a little campy or forced. Sure, it may work for drawing your ideological camp, but it isn’t a compelling story for the unindoctrinated or the broader audience. Which is not to say that movies about Christianity can’t be great for entertainment. I love gritty true stories like that of Hacksaw Ridge or profound, like Silence, will have anyone at the edge of their seats—the key being relatable characters.
Zegler is a bit much. Totally insufferable in the eyes of some. And she plays a part that is equally annoying. The departure from the source material is just too rude. Sure, there is room for an update, but you would never reinvent Rambo as well adjusted pacifist in a mission to avoid too much sun exposure. Disney dumped the essence of the original and replaced it with another tired ’empowered woman’ cliché. You wonder if Zegler herself wrote the script with lines like, “I’m not waiting for anyone to save me” or groaner, “The fairest isn’t about beauty—it’s about justice!”
Ouch.
Oh well, at least even apologists for woke seem to understand that it is just bad. They did not even bother accusing the audience of being racist or misogynistic this time around.
Smash the Symbolism!
What is truly lost is the symbolic depth of the original tale. Snow White was beauty and purity contrasted with the vanity and evil of the obsessed queen. They gutted what made the Grimm tale a significant message about the triumph of innocence over the destructive power of pride. This, obviously, is too nuanced for a superficial sexual organ obsessed militant far-leftist to understand. The producers of the new film replaced purity of motive against cunning with a banal competition for power.
It’s not even moral inversion. They totally lost the point. It makes me think they lack any layers to their being. It’s all about their grievance and getting back at those they’ve scapegoated for their own misery. Like the evil queen, with all the power, they envy the beauty and peace of others and attempt to kill it with their poisoned apple. Snow Woke is the toxic fruit. Zegler is an icon of their privileged ‘diverse’ female with an entitled chip on her shoulder and not the slightest bit of appreciation for all the good men who made her ignorance possible.
This is not to say those who are fixated on the literal whiteness of the actress are any better. Grimm was not writing about racial supremacy anymore than woke supremecy, if anything the original story was about our transcending politics and Zegler would be perfectly suited for the role if she were able to embody that spirit. But our culture, in a desperate need of critique, it dichotomizes everything—divides the world into friend or foe, as if life is a zero-sum game and there is never anything to gain through fusion of opposites.
Zegler is as Puritanical (and Pharisaical) as a religious fundamentalist. She reframes a rescuing prince as a stalker and romance as weird. More rigid than a patriarch, more domineering than the system she is taught to loath. A preacher rather than an actual protagonist. Basically, a young idealist who wields her moral certainty with a convert’s passion, and yet stumbling into hypocrisy under scrutiny—reaping benefits of every institution she claims to reject.
The Female Power of Beauty, Gentleness and Grace
A few years ago, I was in the checkout line and suddenly noticed the cashier. She was beautiful, pale or ashen-faced, with hair that was jet black, pleasant smile and yet there was something uncanny valleyish about her appearance. I could not quite put my finger on it. But then she spoke. This would send a shiver through me. Never before did I have that sort of feeling simply by hearing someone talk. There was a certain quality to her voice that was almost child-like, soft, pure, and really threw me for a loop. And it occurred to me that this young woman was a real life Snow White. I had not thought this would actually be attractive in person, but it had me momentarily smitten.
As it would turn out, in a later conversation, I learned she was mixed race, Filipino mom and dad of some kind of European descent, which is likely what gave her this stunningly feminine appearance. Now, no doubt this gentle exterior was cover over a tough and capable individual. She drove an old pickup truck and lived apart from her family with a sister, and may well have been a teenager or in her early twenties. In many ways she is like Zegler (who is herself a mix of Colombian and Polish heritage), but this real-life Snow White wielded her beauty, gentleness, and grace as a quiet strength that captivated without preaching, Zegler’s strident zeal turns a timeless tale into a soapbox, losing the feminine power of subtlety for a hollow shout of self-righteousness.
This is what outspoken angry feminists fail to grasp, forcefulness isn’t the only kind of power. My petite wife could never command me to do anything. I’m 50% bigger than her and have twice the upper body strength, I would shrug it off. But she does not need to force me to do anything. She overpowers me by other means. For example, early on, before we were married, she convinced me to stop drinking so much soda, she told me water is a symbol of her love “pure and clean” and when I drink it I could feel her love. I didn’t need to be told twice.
When I look at my baby daughter I would do anything for her. She’s so vulnerable—there is a strong desire to protect and defend her—I’m drawn, not compelled.
So what does female empowerment really mean?
Is it empowering to a fish to be out of the water?
A visual representation of society telling individuals they need to be something else to be happy.
Humans are wired for their base biological and physical functions. Reproduction is a big part of this. It becomes clear after you see process through from courtship to baby in a carriage. Early in the pregnancy, given our financial goals, my wife had considered sending the yet to be both child to be raised by her mother. But as soon as the bundle of cuteness arrived, along with the appropriate hormones, it was never a question. Family is empowerment. My sacrifice, as a father, is more rewarding than the toys I could buy for myself as an independent bachelor.
We’re relational, not rational.
Therefore, the things we think will make us happy do not give us long-term fulfillment—the woke Zegler types are privileged, given preference as women or minorities, and yet always unhappy and looking at what others have and they do not. They are a paradox, enjoying female privilege—then miserable and wanting what men have.
It is toxic, it is their impurity of spirit, and it destroys their natural beauty and potential for true empowerment.
In all honesty, I don’t really have a problem with Zegler’s passion or outspokenness. I guess I tend to prefer women with a real personality and feel she is right on the Gaza issue. But what is wrong is that she’s not the right character to play what is supposed to be an embodiment of purity and the power of innocence against evil. Snow White isn’t supposed to be Mockingjay or a story where physical force met with force—but of a different kind of power.
Ultimately, the 2025 Snow White stumbles not just as a film but as a misguided anthem, with Rachel Zegler’s shrill militancy drowning out the subtle power the Grimm tale once whispered. The original’s purity and even Disney’s 1937 grace knew strength isn’t loud—it’s captivating, like the cashier whose soft voice and uncanny beauty stopped me cold, a real-life Snow White wielding gentleness over force. My wife, too, overpowers me not with commands but with a love pure as water, turning a stubborn man into a willing protector, and just as our daughter’s vulnerability stirs my soul to shield her. Zegler’s remake, obsessed with preaching justice over enchantment, misses this: true feminine empowerment doesn’t need a megaphone or a militia—it’s the quiet, relational magic that binds us, a truth the poisoned apple of ‘Snow Woke’ chokes out, leaving a hollow echo where a fairytale’s heart once beat.
The other day I saw a Facebook ad for a charity of some kind featuring a boy that was covered head to toe in burns. His body quivered, his breaths short, labored, and he is clearly in distress.
Thinking this was just some unfortunate accident being exploited for donations it was too much for me (as a father) to see. My first thought was who is putting this ad on social media? I posted a combination of my concern for the child and a question of the appropriateness of putting this video on social media.
But later someone responding to my initial comment told me the where and why—and it changed everything. This baby was not just a random victim of a kitchen accident in a third world country as I had imagined. No, this was a deliberate act. It is part of a terror and revenge campaign being waged using bombs provided by our tax dollars. It is acceptable collateral damage to those on the side of this state actor—which has kept their perpetual victimhood status due to an event before we were born.
Apparently now they have a blank check to do as they please because of the bad thing that happened to their people approaching a century ago on another continent. Never again is only about their suffering then, protecting their own, and not a call to oppose all genocides or ethnic cleansing campaigns. They would tell us that the cruelty against this baby in the social media post, and the tens of thousands like him, is all justified because of an attack over a year ago when nearly 1200 died in the chaos of a border incursion and 251 were taken hostage.
However, in the same way I had absolutely nothing to do with American slavery and have not profited from it, this young child is not responsible for what others have done and no less precious than the red-headed Bidas boys killed in the fog of war and are now used as part of a propaganda campaign to continue the bloodshed. If your outage is selective and only based on whose child is being maimed or killed, then you lack true Christian compassion.
Are You Better Than Your Ancestors?
You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. Go ahead, then, and complete what your ancestors started! (Matthew 23:29a-32 NIV)
There are thousands—tens of thousands—of memorials to an event we call Holocaust and more continue to be built. Presumably it is so we remember those who were killed and never repeat this horrendous slaughter ever again. In the Nazi Germany all people who belonged to various ethnic groups and categories were made collectively guilty of trying to crimes against the German people, forced behind walls of concentration camps and then secretly killed by the regime.
The Nazis, despite all their propaganda and hate, took care to hide the reality they were on an extermination campaign. From their literature, they were “resettling” the victims and that the “atrocity stories” were nothing but malicious lies. They tried to keep most Germans in the dark about what was truly taking place. Had they broadcast their genocide for all to see, a good part of German society would likely not have been okay with it—why else would they have denied?
However, there is a modern parallel where those doing the industrial scale murder are shameless. They watch and cheer as little children are shredded, limbs torn from their young bodies, shrapnel slicing horrendous gashes through their faces. But it is not just that relentless bombing of a people rounded up like cattle—it is the young boys ripped away from their families for minor infractions like throwing stones at occupying soldiers, with no due process, then raped and brutalized in military prisons.
This has been going on for decades and is openly celebrated by the perpetrators. The United States government enthusiastically supports an ongoing ethic cleansing twice as brazen as the Holocaust.
The sad part is that many reading this will know exactly what I’m talking about, aren’t able to refute a single claim I’ve made, and will choose denial. Those terrorists had it coming, they’ll convince themselves, as the next child is blow to bits as illegal settlers watch eagerly from the hills overlooking the carnage. They literally do boat tours off the coast to pick what part of the annexed land they will take. This is depravity on a whole different level, yet our propaganda blinded morons will say it is 100% morally justified because “God’s people” or October 7th.
A Century of Aggression, Conflict and Terror
The biggest propaganda lie is to say that a conflict began after the other side hit back or escalated. The fight between the settlers from Europe and people native to Palestine didn’t start on October 7th. Quibble over the semantic details, but there were inhabitants on the land pushed off through a campaign of terror and abuse, here’s a brief historical timeline provided by Grok:
1882 – First Aliyah Begins: The First Aliyah marks the start of organized Zionist immigration to Ottoman Palestine, driven by European Jewish nationalists seeking a homeland. About 25,000–35,000 Jews arrive between 1882 and 1903, often buying land from absentee Ottoman landlords. Palestinians, the indigenous Arab population (Muslim, Christian, and Druze), number around 500,000 and live as farmers, urban dwellers, and Bedouins under Ottoman rule. These early settlers, motivated by Theodor Herzl’s Zionist vision (articulated later in 1896), begin displacing Palestinian tenant farmers, though violence remains sporadic at this stage.
November 2, 1917 – Balfour Declaration: The British government issues the Balfour Declaration, promising a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine. This galvanizes Zionist settlement, with immigrants arriving under British protection post-World War I. Palestinians, still a majority (over 90% of the population), oppose this as it threatens their land and self-determination. No major Zionist terror acts occur yet, but tensions rise as settlers establish armed militias like Hashomer to guard settlements, clashing with locals.
April 4–7, 1920 – Nebi Musa Riots: Violence erupts in Jerusalem as Palestinians protest Zionist immigration and British policy. Jewish settlers, supported by early Zionist self-defense groups, clash with Arabs, leaving 9 dead (5 Jews, 4 Arabs) and over 200 injured. This marks an early escalation, though not yet a coordinated Zionist terror campaign. Palestinians are defending their homeland; settlers are a growing minority (around 60,000 by 1920) asserting claims to the land.
May 1–7, 1921 – Jaffa Riots: Anti-Zionist unrest in Jaffa results in 47 Jews and 48 Arabs killed, with hundreds injured. Zionist settlers, now numbering about 85,000, retaliate with armed groups like the Haganah (formed 1920), targeting Palestinian communities. Palestinians, still indigenous and resisting displacement, face increasing settler militancy. These riots signal the start of organized Zionist violence, though not yet classified as terrorism.
August 23–29, 1929 – Palestine Riots: Widespread clashes over Jerusalem’s holy sites kill 133 Jews and 116 Arabs. Zionist settlers, bolstered by Haganah, fight back against Palestinian attacks on Jewish communities. The violence reflects growing settler presence (around 156,000 Jews) and Palestinian fears of losing control. While mutual, this period sees Zionist groups refining their armed capabilities, laying groundwork for later terror tactics.
1935 – Irgun Splits from Haganah: The Irgun, a Revisionist Zionist militia led by Ze’ev Jabotinsky’s ideology (“only Jewish armed force would ensure the Jewish state”), breaks from the more moderate Haganah. Settlers now number over 300,000, aggressively expanding. Palestinians, still a majority (around 850,000), face intensifying land loss. Irgun begins targeting British and Arab civilians, marking the onset of a deliberate Zionist terror campaign.
April 1936–1939 – Arab Revolt: Palestinians launch a revolt against British rule and Zionist immigration, killing around 5,000 Arabs, 400 Jews, and 200 British. Irgun escalates terror, bombing Arab markets (e.g., July 6, 1938, in Haifa, killing 18) and buses (August–September 1937). Settlers, now a militarized minority, aim to secure land; Palestinians fight to preserve their homeland. Atrocities include Irgun’s reprisal killings of civilians.
July 22, 1946 – King David Hotel Bombing: Irgun bombs the British administrative headquarters in Jerusalem, killing 91 (British, Arab, and Jewish). This high-profile attack, led by Menachem Begin, targets Mandate authorities to force withdrawal and enable Zionist statehood. Settlers (around 600,000) are a significant force; Palestinians (over 1.2 million) face displacement as Zionist militias grow bolder.
November 29, 1947 – UN Partition Plan (Resolution 181): The UN votes to partition Palestine into Jewish and Arab states. Zionist settlers (about 630,000) accept it; Palestinians (1.3 million) reject it, fearing loss of 55% of their land despite being 67% of the population. Civil war erupts, with Zionist terror intensifying—Haganah, Irgun, and Lehi launch attacks on Palestinian villages.
December 1947–May 1948 – Pre-Nakba Atrocities: Zionist militias begin ethnic cleansing before Israel’s founding. On December 18, 1947, Irgun bombs Jerusalem’s Damascus Gate, killing 20 Arabs. By April 9, 1948, the Deir Yassin massacre sees Irgun and Lehi kill over 100 Palestinian villagers, including women and children, sparking mass flight. Settlers aim to clear land; Palestinians, indigenous and defenseless, lose over 300,000 people to exile before Arab armies intervene.
May 14, 1948 – Israel Declares Independence (Nakba Begins): Israel is established, and the Nakba (“catastrophe”) sees Zionist forces expel 750,000 Palestinians, destroying 530 villages. Atrocities like the Tantura massacre (May 22–23, 1948, over 200 killed) exemplify the campaign. Settlers become citizens of Israel (population 806,000, 82% Jewish); Palestinians, reduced to 150,000 within Israel, face further displacement as refugees.
July 25, 1947 – Sergeants Affair: Irgun kidnaps and hangs two British sergeants in retaliation for death sentences on its members, booby-trapping their bodies. This terror act pressures Britain to exit. Settlers solidify control; Palestinians suffer escalating violence as Zionist goals near fruition.
June 5–10, 1967 – Six-Day War: Israel launches a preemptive strike on Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, occupying the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem. Settlers expand into these territories (e.g., Kfar Etzion reestablished in 1967); Palestinians (around 1 million in occupied areas) endure military rule and land seizures, with 280,000–360,000 more displaced.
1987–1993 – First Intifada: Palestinians in occupied territories revolt against Israeli rule, met with settler violence and IDF repression (160 Israelis, 2,162 Palestinians killed). Settlers, now numbering over 100,000 in the West Bank, attack Palestinian communities, often with impunity. This period highlights ongoing settler-Palestinian conflict.
September 28, 2000–2005 – Second Intifada: A more violent uprising sees 1,000 Israelis and 4,000 Palestinians killed. Settler extremists and IDF target Palestinian civilians; settlers (over 200,000 in West Bank) expand outposts, intensifying land theft. Palestinians resist occupation, facing collective punishment.
The Zionists did not hide their Holocaust and they never abandoned their national roots in terror either. The Irgun and other settler militias (terrorist organizations) were integrated into the new Israeli government and never held accountable. Anywhere else in the world Americans would be funding the “freedom fighters” trying to fight off the invasion and later the yoke of occupation and oppression—but, in this case, AIPAC spends millions upon millions every year to buy the support (or just the silence) of US politicians.
The American public is propagandized and Evangelicals shoveled under a pile of what amounts to theological manure to remain blinded to one side of the atrocities being committed. If your answer to any question of what the IDF does to Palestinians is “but Hamas” then you are anti-Christ. Jesus did not teach an eye for an eye, certainly not ten of their eyes plus the lives of their children, and instead taught to turn the other cheek and love our enemies. If you condone (let alone celebrate) the calculated murder of children then you have entirely destroyed your own Christian witness.
There is no morality when morality changes depending on who is doing it. If it is wrong for Hamas fighters to escape their open air prison (equivalent to concentration camps or Warsaw ghetto) to take Israeli hostages to barter for the return of their own, then it is most certainly wrong for the IDF to bomb knowing they will likely kill up to 15 civilians for one Hamas fighter. And do not feed me this “they hide behind women and children” bullshit excuse. Zionism hides behind the Holocaust rather than own up to the long list of atrocities committed in the name of a Jewish homeland.
The first Holocaust doesn’t justify the ethnic cleansing of Gaza or current massacre with spectators. The IDF is not at war, in war you don’t have boat tours or field trips to watch—they are bombing fish in a barrel and then playing victim.
This clever framing of perpetual victimhood, even while they are doing worse than those they call terrorists, may work for those who are indoctrinated into Zionism or ignorant—buy it does not work for a consistent moral standard.
It is a “rules for thee, not for me” scenario where anything Israel does is blessed and anything the Palestinians do is a terrible act of terrorism. Zionists can steal land, kill or rape the rightful owners, but then be upset when the Palestinians finally caught on and started copying their terrorism. I mean, if it worked for Irgun—why not Hamas?
No More Holocaust In OUR Name!
A favorite tactic of apologists for Zionism is to deflect from current IDF atrocities to ask why equal time isn’t spent condemning the other side. But we are not funding Hamas, we are not providing them with military aid, and I am not making a mockery of my faith by claiming that God gives those who deny his son special exemption to kill for land. If God is on their side then they don’t my tax dollars to fight their fight. America-first only works when you end foreign entanglements and make no exceptions. We don’t need to invade Israel to stop them, we simply need to stop feeding their war machine. I’m not responsible for Hamas—but my money is going to continue a genocide and therefore I will make my stance clear: No more baby murder in my name!
When Aaron Bushnell stood before the Israeli Embassy on February 25, 2024, and set himself ablaze, he didn’t just die—he screamed a truth too many ignore: “I will no longer be complicit in genocide.” His final words echo the resignations of principled State Department officials like Josh Paul, who quit back in October 2023, declaring, “I cannot work in support of a set of major policy decisions… that I believe to be shortsighted, destructive, unjust.” Or Annelle Sheline, who left in March 2024, unable to serve under the Biden administration “that enables the atrocities in Gaza.” These true Americans—soldiers, diplomats—saw the blood on our hands and courageously they chose conscience over career.
They saw what American Zionists choose to ignore. The footage emerged of a 10-year-old, Ahmed, burned alive in December 2024 when an IDF airstrike hit a tent camp in Deir al-Balah. His screams, captured on a bystander’s phone, cut through the lies and propaganda: a boy, not a fighter, reduced to ash as the settlers watched from the gallery eager to personally gain from the slaughter of babies. You can’t be pro-life and be okay with this. You can’t represent Christ while being an apologist for murder.
We’re not funding Hamas. We’re bankrolling a machine that burns children alive, rapes boys (old as my son) in detention, and calls this defense.
Bushnell saw it.
Paul saw it.
Sheline saw it.
They acted.
Will we?
Or will we keep decorating the graves of the righteous, and pretend that our silence isn’t complicity?
I posted pictures because we must stop this—in the name of Jesus it must stop!
I decided to take on one of the lies being spread on social media today and found myself bumping up against the Facebook censorship regime once again. And what they allow or disallow is purely about the partisan narrative they’re pushing. Leftists can post memes all day long showing Elon Musk with his hand raised, claiming that he is a Nazi, but you can’t even post a plain old picture of Democrats with their hands in an apparent salute without that “misleading” blackout being slapped on it.
InDePeNdEnT fAcT-cHeCkInG
This is the kind of protection those left of center can expect. They’re never held to the same standard as those on the right. If you are conservative any soundbite can ripped out of context and disseminated without a fact-check. Republicans are guilty until they prove themselves innocent. By contrast, the corporate media mouthpieces do not confront the left for their hypocrisy and require Democrats to denounce the left-wing violence. And Billionaire’s like Mark Zuckerberg play interference for them by not even letting us make a comparison to show how ridiculous their claims are.
This is what I posted on Facebook with the image above:
What happens when you put a conservative guy with Asberger’s syndrome in front of an audience of leftists?
Bullying.
The left is about conformity.
You march to the beat of their drum or they will ostracize and belittle. Name-calling is a leftist invention. They love their categories, white and black, haves versus have nots, and it is always about pigeonholing people into tribal groups and robbing all people of their own unique identities.
But turning Musk’s awkward movements, as a guy clearly on the Autism spectrum, into a Nazi salute—even the ADL said that’s taking it too far. Unfortunately this misinterpreting of his hand motion has become that moral justification the far-left wanted to unleash a terror campaign of vandalism and violence—a Krystalnacht redux.
Why did Nazis hate the Jews? Well, there was the same envy of wealth and influence then that the left is now directed at public figures like Musk. To the left a billionaire’s money should belong to them, the ‘fasces’ or their elite managerial class, whereas an American vision is that people should keep their lawfully acquired gains.
Patriotic Americans believe in free markets and rule of law. In stark contrast, the Antifa left (deceptively named) believe in central control (in their hands) and rule by mob if anyone dares to resist their ‘progressive’ regime. They are everything un-American bundled into one ugly package, unforgiving, anti-freedom, big government, collectivist (you do what ‘we’ demand or else) and do not believe in civil rights—starting with that of respecting property and persons.
As I travel in Asia there are Swastikas all the place. If we judged their usage by our own narrow interpretation and understanding we would issue travel warnings to Jews. But it is not the symbols or gestures that matter—it is the attitudes and actions behind them. Musk wants taxpayers to keep more of the money they’ve earned. While the left, along with their Democrat enablers, want to scare you away from choosing the best EV brand there is because they’re control freaks.
The left totally lacks empathy. Sure, they claim it, like they claim everything else on the planet they didn’t earn with their own work. It’s all about them, their Narcissistic small-minded worldview, that is why they can only ever project, accuse, self-deceive and destroy the success of others. They’re an organism that thanklessly destroys their host and condones hate, theft, arson, and murder of anyone who does not lockstep with their cult agenda.
Musk’s “my heart goes out to you” gesture…
The problem isn’t only that the left has a clear double standard, it is that they think they’re the worthy judge when they’re clearly as biased as they come. A little humility would go a long way for this lot. At the very least they could let us be free from their grip to spend our own money and live our own lives—but then that would be too democratic for their tastes.
Anyone who has flown commercial knows the safety rundown before take-off. You’re instructed on where to find lifejackets and how to put on the oxygen masks. And one thing they emphasize is before taking care of anyone else, including children, they need to secure their own oxygen first. This does not mean that a passenger shouldn’t care at all about anyone else. What it means is that caring for ourselves first can make us more able to help others.
I came across a post of Facebook about the vandalism and terror campaign against Elon Musk’s Tesla brand. In the comments I saw a left-wing activist justifying their violence by using a paraphrase of Musk, “empathy is a weakness.” So I looked into the claim and found a quote of Musk during a Joe Rogan Experience podcast:
There’s a guy who posts on X who’s great, Gad Saad? … Yeah, he’s awesome, and he talks about, you know, basically suicidal empathy. Like, there’s so much empathy that you actually suicide yourself. So, we’ve got civilizational suicidal empathy going on. And it’s like, I believe in empathy, like, I think you should care about other people, but you need to have empathy for, for civilization as a whole, and not commit to a civilizational suicide. … The fundamental weakness of Western civilization is empathy, the empathy exploit. They’re exploiting a bug in Western civilization, which is the empathy response.
I’m not sure where “empathy is a weakness” can be found there. What it seems Musk is saying is to keep everything in balance and not go to self-destructive extremes. I would call it rational pragmatism rather than use a weird sounding “suicidal empathy” and yet it is a poignant point. We can understand and share the feelings of others (empathy) while not destroying civilization in the process. It is sort of how I always listen to my son, but don’t always give him stuff that he wants—because the soda and sweets could lead to tooth decay and diabetes.
This is the Gad Saad quote referenced by Musk in the interview:
Imagine an entire civilization that is taken over by an emotional parasite called suicidal empathy that trumps every other instinct that is within your adaptive repertoire. You are willing to sacrifice everything at the Altar of Suicidal Empathy. Nothing is more important than that.
What he’s taking on is the ideologies that demand we recognize, accept and finance every kind of bizarre behavior. Money being sent for transgender operas when we have crumbling infrastructure, for example, this is what suicidal empathy looks like. Or letting a confused men destroy women’s sports—there is an opportunity cost to these special accomodations and, with limited resources, it means many will suffer for the whims of a few demanding empathy in the form of their own exemptions and privileges.
My son may want me to taking him fishing every day. To him I have limitless time and resources. He says it would only take me a few minutes to drive him across town to his favorite spot. But what he doesn’t really get is how doing this is difficult given I can’t just leave baby at home and it also cuts into my time to do the chores he neglects. To him it seems simple and he reacts with disgust as if he is entitled to transportation and a life of leisure at the expense of everyone else in the house—yet the adults know better.
Performative Empathy vs. True Compassion
Nobody at DOGE is saying we should beat or bully transgender people or forbid people from donating to foreign causes. What they have advocated is for efficient and effective use of public funds. Yes, it could be called “tough love” and yet it is really essentially to the thriving—even surviving—of the country that we don’t bleed resources for minimal or no real return. Government is not a charity, it relies on coercion to attain funds, for that reason it should only be used for things the majority of people support.
Those burning Tesla supercharger stations, smashing out dealership windows, or even attacking vehicles owned by individuals not named Elon may claim to represent the side of empathy, but their’s is only performative empathy and part of their partisan political agenda that is all about maintaining their own power and control over others. Those same people forcing mandates, in the name of climate change, have now spun a 180 to creating unnecessary pollution. They never cared about the planet—it is always about their belief they have the right to rule us.
That is what toxic empathy is about. It is a manipulation game, a virtue signal, and like the jealous boyfriend’s love. Sure, they say they love, and yet would murder before they would ever let their significant other go their own way or be apart from them. This is, of course, symptomatic of leftism. They want complete control over your life and yet call a billionaire greedy for being allowed to keep the wealth they’ve amassed. And that’s the real culprit here: Envy. It’s not that those on the left care so much about people, it is that they are looking for a moral justification for their rage against successful people.
Leftist ’empathy’ strikes again.
Elon Musk is many things. He’s extremely motivated. A problem solver. A billionaire. A bit of an online troll. A father of fourteen children. Efficiency expert. And also has Asberger’s syndrome. It is that last item on the list that puts him at odds with normies who prefer lawyerspeak to bluntness. Musk doesn’t coat anything in syrup, he analyzes, identifies the problem, and states it plainly rather than beat around the bush. Contrast to the left, he puts logic and reasoning first—feelings second.
As an aside, CEOs and political leaders have a higher likelihood of being psychopaths. It is what makes them good at their jobs. You can’t make good decisions for a corporation or a country when you’re too zeroed in and obsessing over impacts to individuals. That is going to lead to analysis paralysis and no necessary corrections being made. Instead they think on the macro scale. This is not to say they don’t care about the parts, but the good of the whole is what matters to them and they distribute concern according to the overall picture. Sure it may seem cold and calculated—but serves the common good much better than empathy run amok.
As much as those on the left like to crow—as if their great empathy stretches across the globe—the reality is their typically very focused on their own feelings.
Their ’empathy’ is unsustainable.
Myopic.
Blind.
Christian compassion, in contrast, balances judgment and mercy. You do unto others as you want them to do to you, but also speak the truth in love—even when it gets you killed by an angry mob that doesn’t want to hear it. The tension or fusion of love and accountability keeps it grounded; it’s not a free-for-all where every whim gets a blank check. Unlike leftist empathy, which often bends toward appeasement or control, Christian compassion holds a line—help the widow and orphan, yes, but don’t burn down the house to warm them. It’s personal, not performative, and it doesn’t bankrupt the future for the sake of today’s applause.
Breathing Room for Civilization
In the end, the clash isn’t about empathy versus apathy—it’s about who gets to breathe first when the masks drop. Musk and Saad aren’t wrong to call out the self-inflicted wounds of suicidal empathy; they’re just pointing to the scoreboard: civilizations that forget their own oxygen don’t survive to help anyone. Leftist empathy, with its envy-fueled ‘virtue’ and reckless spending, dresses up as love but flirts with collapse—torching Teslas while preaching care, funding operas while bridges crumble. Christian compassion, for all its flaws, at least remembers the whole plane matters, not just the loudest sob story. We don’t need more performative tears or smashed windows—we need a hard reset on what keeps us aloft. Secure your mask, folks; the turbulence is just beginning.
Up until a few years ago, I basically trusted the medical establishment. Sure, even then I would question—like I do with everything else—and then make my own analysis the risks, costs and benefits. My mom’s rule of thumb “everything in moderation” seems to be reasonable in most circumstances. But I’ve grown more skeptical and not because I believe there is a conspiracy to make us all unhealthy either. I just think hubris can be blinding and institutions compromised.
So when it came time to decide whether or not to vaccinate my newborn daughter, my feelings were mixed. She is too precious to gamble. It is my job to protect her. And for that reason I needed to take another look at the question of childhood vaccines. This is my analysis as someone who is not trained in biology, I’m not a medical professional or an expert in any way, shape or form. This is merely the thought process of a concerned father wanting to do what is right and didn’t like the answers he was getting from those ‘credible’ sources.
So join me in a critical look at the topic of childhood vaccines and some things that raised my eyebrows as far as the science, some ethical questions raised recently and the online testimonials versus professional advice. It would take a book to properly cover a topic of this magnitude, but this is an overview and give some reasons for the decision I’ve made. This is a reach into the barrel to examine a few apples and get a little better picture of what else we may find upon further review.
Science: Ingestion… Injection… What Difference Does It Make?
One of my “does their own research” friends reposted a chart posted by Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC) showing the safe amounts of aluminum versus the amount injected with the hepB vaccine—according to their post, 250mcg is an amount 75x more than what is considered safe to be in the bloodstream of a 7.3lb infant. That sounds bad. But this information does beg a few questions.
First, why is aluminum toxic over a certain amount?
Second, does an injection go into the bloodstream?
And, third, why is this in the shot?
What was disconcerting is when I went CDC and WebMD sites and found that they were making an inaccurate comparison. In their defense of aluminum in vaccines they made a case based on the safe amounts to ingest and yet vaccines are injected. This is that kind of presentation that would leads fact-checkers to declare it misleading if it was in a Trump speech. Maybe my neighbor with the “believe science” placard in their yard isn’t going to notice this sleight of hand, but I certainly did. It certainly didn’t assure me much about their actual authority when they tried to pass to different means of entering the body as one and the same.
Oh, but it does…
However, the PIC information is equally as misleading. And they know it. The post is talking about safe amounts of aluminum in the bloodstream. And yet vaccines are not injected directly into blood vessels. No, the shot goes into soft tissue and the aluminum is slowly dissolved from there. So clearly it is not aiding a mission of informed consent anymore than the drug company sponsored content. It’s just propaganda. It is put out to feed the confirmation bias of anti-vaxxers and muddies the waters. The freaked out #protectyourkids mothers are not going to ask further questions.
The bigger question is what aluminum does in large amounts. Words like “toxic” can be tossed around in the same manner of Nazi or racist. But slapping a label of something does not make it accurate description nor is it equal to comprehension of the topic. The same authority establishing a “safe” versus “unsafe” levels of aluminum also tells us to get vaccinated. The whole point of adding aluminum is as an adjuvant, it is supposed to provoke an immune response and only is bad when it begins to build up—typically it is just expelled from the body without doing any damage.
Practically speaking one would need to be an expert on toxicology to truly know what ‘the science’ is and give informed consent, the rest of us are merely picking which side we want to trust. For me, I lean towards the consensus over the outliers, what it means is generally not ranking a relatively group—like PIC—over the larger group of physicians (who have children themselves) and believe that the benefits of vaccines outweigh the risks. Yes, professionals have blindspots, they are more married to the system too as bigger beneficiaries, but they’re also smart people trying to help and heal.
Ethics: Myth of the Abstaining Amish and Abortion Cells
One of those claims that come up over and over again online is that Amish are healthier because they don’t get the vaccines. Given what I know, working with Amish, I’ll put this somewhere between “96% of statistics are made up on the spot” and “Amish don’t pay taxes,” because it is just plain untrue. Back in 2011 my sister, a medical doctor, worked on a survey of 1000 Amish people and their attitudes towards vaccines. 85% of those surveyed had vaccinated at least some of their children. Sure, Amish lag behind the general population, and uptake varies as they’re not a monolith, and attitudes have likely shifted in the post-Covid era, but they aren’t totally abstinent—just hesitant.
To get into the complexity of the picture, in my brief survey of my office co-workers (I work for an Amish-owned company) there was an interesting anecdote. Apparently, his mother contracted measles while she was carrying one of his older sisters. The result were complications and his sister’s lifelong health issues. Needless to say, his mom became more in favor of vaccines after this and that has been the story for some time. The discomfort of subjecting our children to shots looms larger until we get a first-hand experience with the actual disease. A day or two of soreness and high temperatures is better than measles, polio, or other preventable diseases. The ethics shift towards the risk of intervention.
Speaking of ethics, another coworker—not Amish—piped up about how vaccines use aborted fetuses. This is technically true in the case of some vaccines, I’ll let Grok give a brief explanation:
Certain vaccines—like those for rubella, chickenpox, and some hepatitis strains—rely on cell lines originally derived from fetal tissue decades ago. These aren’t “aborted embryos” in the sense of fresh tissue being scooped up and tossed into a vat. Instead, we’re talking about two specific cell lines: WI-38 and MRC-5. WI-38 came from a fetus aborted in the 1960s in Sweden (elective, legal termination), and MRC-5 from a similar case in the UK. Scientists took lung cells from those fetuses, grew them in labs, and kept them replicating ever since. These cell lines are immortalized—meaning they’ve been dividing for generations, far removed from the original source.
Why use them? Viruses for vaccines (like rubella or varicella) often need human cells to grow, and these lines are stable, well-studied, and safe for producing big batches. The cells aren’t in the vaccine itself—they’re like a factory. The virus is grown in them, then harvested, purified, and processed so the final shot has no fetal cells, just the viral bits needed to trigger immunity. Think of it like using yeast to make beer—the yeast doesn’t end up in your bottle.
This longer explanation does not have the same punch as “they use aborted fetuses to make vaccines.” But, for me, it answers the ethical question. This use of these two cell lines to save lives is basically equivalent to planting of a flower garden over the grave of a murder victim. I’m no more guilty of that than I am for the land under my feet being soaked in the blood of conquered people. It is just what is. What was done is done and refusing to use vaccines derived from those cell lines is not going to restore the life that was taken. I have more of a problem with the characterization of this being too vague to give proper understanding.
The soil under our feet is soaked in blood, but not an ethical dilemma to put to good use.
In the end, both sides of this debate peddle their myths, misinformation and deception, calling those mRNA Covid jabs “safe and effective” one of those establishment lines that fell flat in the test of time. But, for me the ethics of putting my children at risk of preventable disease outweighs misgivings about something done over 50 years ago. We can’t bring back those killed, but we can make their lives worthwhile and honor the legacy they’ve created for us. My opinion would be vastly different if they were still harvesting fetal tissue to grow viruses.
It is more important that we are honest than we win a debate. There’s no excuse for the repeated and easily debunked claims about Amish or aborted cells to be shared. Those in the “do their own research” crowd need to do better. When I see people share videos made by a chiropractor, in a lab coat, going only by doctor, it makes me question their judgement more than anything else. Being an expert in doing bone adjustments is one thing, biology is completely another. People aren’t very good about picking their sources, let alone producing coherent ethics.
Tragedy Testimonials Versus Professional Recommendations
Another thing I’ve come across, on social media, is that case of a child that died very shortly after the vaccine was administered. The grieving parents, one of them a nurse, disagree with the autopsy report, that cited SIDS, and put blame on the shots. First off, the pain of losing a child is beyond anything else I’ve ever experienced (you can read my personal account, “The Day My Little Hope Died“) and always will leave many questions for those left behind. Second, in this case, it may feel better to externalize blame.
I’ll admit, I was a little put off by my medical provider (a Physician’s Assistant) who just brushed off my concerns about too much—too soon. This is my little darling, and it is my job to protect her, so at least entertain my anxieties a little. So that part where of her worry about her son’s sickness prior to getting a dose of vaccines being dismissed does resonate. That doctor should have shown a little more respect for a mother’s intuition and a nurse’s instincts. That said, we’re only getting one side of the story and from the perspective of someone not really in a good state of mind.
Just taking the testimonial at face value—not verifying any of the claims—they give a clue about what really happened with their own choice of words:
Melissa, who worked remotely, heard the baby fussing around 6:15 p.m. Her husband went in to check on him. He readjusted him, and rubbed his back as Fathers do. Baby Sawyer fell back to sleep.
When we were in the hospital for the birth of our daughter, before we took her home, they pounded it into our heads not to put loose items in her crib with her and never to allow her to sleep belly down. This is about SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome) when a perfectly healthy baby is put to bed, often laying on their belly, suffers from positional asphyxia and dies. Infants are completely helpless, they can’t readjust their position if their airway is somehow restricted and they could be gone in a matter of minutes.
So that particular paragraph really jumped out at me. I’m very sensitive to how people structure their thoughts, the phrases, and I have even identified a false accuser once only on the basis of the use of words that were conveyed through another person in a paraphrase. When I saw “as Fathers do” it came off as a slightly defensive posture—most especially next to “rubbed his back” in the context of a sleeping infant. One hand they’re being as honest as they are able to be in the circumstances. On the other hand they’ve just given corroborating evidence for the official autopsy report.
They can be forgiven for their blame game. It is hard enough to lose a child, but totally unthinkable to believe something you did may have contributed. When Sanyiah died I stopped speaking to two of my siblings (not that they noticed as busy as they were) for a year or two. Why? Well, they both were not at the funeral, in my mind they did not care enough about the little people in their lives (that meaning my ex-fiance who had personal ties to them) and were, in a round about way, part of the problem that caused the child’s death.
The real reason my anger was taken out on them, however, was that psychological need we have to find a scapegoat. And Melissa, rather than pile on her husband, which won’t help, has pointed somewhere else instead—which is better than their negative feelings being turned in on the marriage. It is a way of coping with tragedy. As far as testimonials go, three of my cousins had a seizure disorder, one of them died and two of them are severely disabled. After their issues with the first child, they decided not to vaccinate. But this made no difference in the end. The impulse to blame intervention is strong, yet correlation isn’t causation and often the truth is messier than those simple narratives we prefer.
In the case of baby Sawyer, it doesn’t have to be one thing or another. The risk factors for SIDS include both second hand smoke and overheating. It seems quite possible a bunch of vaccines, on top of being already sick, and then possibly being on their belly, all contributed to the end result. Medical professionals face big liabilities if they are at fault. There is a tendency to circle the wagons or become tight lipped rather than speculate when million dollar lawsuits can be the result. So maybe in a perfect world vaccines would be a bigger part of the SIDS discussion?
Still, aluminum in the bloodstream does not cause suffocation and 34 hours later is not description of a biological mechanism that links the injection to the outcome.
A Respectful Conclusion, My Final Risk Analysis…
No parent ever wants to be responsible for the suffering or death of their child. When I see my daughter’s eyes looking up at me it melts my heart. She already has me totally wrapped around her finger and I would not do anything that put her at an unnecessary risk. There is a temptation to take the “If it isn’t broke don’t fix it” approach to vaccines or basically do nothing. At least this way an intervention you signed off on didn’t directly cause the harm. Without the nudge of the doctor’s office I might fall off the schedule they have simply because it feels better.
But the body of evidence points to benefits that outweigh the risks. That is to say there are risks, vaccine injury is real, but there are risks to everything we do or don’t do. Would anyone have stepped on board the Titanic if they knew the icy ordeal that awaited them in the middle of the night? In 2022, motor vehicle accidents took the lives of 42,514 people. And yet we don’t see emotional testimonials online about the “mistake” it was to drive to Kansas or trying to caution us against this dangerous activity. This is because we have normalized the risk and tune it out—that and we think that only the bad drivers die when any of us could.
What could be improved is a little respect all around.
First off, this advice applies to the medical establishment. From Fauci on down there has been this attitude of near contempt for those who question their authority. A prime example is the statement of Dr Fauci when faced with scrutiny:
So it’s easy to criticize, but they’re really criticizing science because I represent science. That’s dangerous. To me, that’s more dangerous than the slings and the arrows that get thrown at me. I’m not going to be around here forever, but science is going to be here forever. And if you damage science, you are doing something very detrimental to society long after I leave. And that’s what I worry about.
Beyond hybris. Beyond martyr complex and a misdiagnosis of the situation. No, Fauci, you cannot say “I am the law” like a rouge police officer. That’s not science, that is just a delusion. Sure, it sucks to be questioned in your own area of expertise. I think this is why some physicians do sometimes gloss over concerns of patients. But this is what damages the credibility of the institutions of science more than anything else. When the top doctor confuses “the science” with his own position he’s dangerous.
Okay, you smug, and dangerous, SOB.
Second, those of us self-educated people, who have not gone through that rigorous process of medical school or taken any kind of advanced biology course should remain humble. No, my lack of proper terminology does not make me an idiot. Nor should a nurse and mother’s concerns about her sick baby getting shots be dismissed. But “did your own research,” while in the lobby of the chiropractor, does not make you an expert or unbiased.
In the end, no parent wants to gamble with their child’s life. Staring into my daughter’s trusting eyes, I feel the weight of that responsibility—and the pull to do nothing, to avoid any chance of harm through action. Yet, after sifting through the science, wrestling with ethical dilemmas, and listening to both heartbreaking stories and professional guidance, I’ve landed on this: the evidence tilts toward vaccines’ benefits outweighing their risks. It’s not a perfect system—vaccine injuries happen, and the medical establishment could stand to listen better—but the data holds up against the diseases they prevent. We all deserve more humility and respect in this conversation, from doctors to doubters like me. For my little girl, I’m choosing the path that keeps her safest, not just from needles, but from what they guard against.
Hit me up in the comments section below with your most powerful arguments for or against childhood vaccines.
Irregular Ideation 