collective punishment

Abraham’s Righteousness vs. Caiaphas’s Calculus: Divergent Ethics in Modern Conflicts

Standard

Relating to a coworker about how hard it is for me to transmit certain values absent a cultural context, with how deeply ingrained they are as part of my religious upbringing, in pondering this reality it becomes easy to understand why so many people—myself included, at times—assume their own moral framework is universal, something everyone else must naturally share.

This moment of realization tied to a broader observation about value systems and how wildly different various religious traditions really are despite sharing some of the same foundational texts—they are fundamentally and irrevocably different. And yet because the texts overlap, some people mistakenly treat those systems as essentially similar—or even interchangeable—overlooking the profound divergences in interpretation, emphasis, or lived practice that centuries of distinct cultural evolution in these systems of thought have produced.

I plan to make three stops: one in the frame of contemporary Western thought, the next from the time of Jesus, and lastly with the patriarch Abraham. And with each of these stops explore how shared origin can mask strikingly divergent ethical worlds, and why recognizing those differences matters more than ever in our interconnected age.

Innocent Until Proven Guilty and the Blackstone Ratio

Wrongful convictions happen. We often assume, since someone was charged, that they must be guilty of something. I mean, why else would they be wearing that orange jumpsuit? But this impulse goes contrary to reality where cops plant evidence, people lie, and prejudice plays a role in judgment. 

This was the case with Brian Banks—who had been accused of rape by a classmate who later, after his years in prison, confessed to fabricating the whole account. What a horrible predicament: your whole future blown up, a jury that only sees your guilt.

A jurist, Sir William Blackstone, understanding the imperfection of the justice system and that the ultimate goal of justice is to protect the innocent, proposed:

It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer

This, the Blackstone ratio, is foundational to how things are at least supposed to work in the United States. Founding father Ben Franklin actually took the concept further by stating, “it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer.”  John Adams, while he defended the British soldiers charged with murder for their role in the Boston Massacre, argued the following:

We find, in the rules laid down by the greatest English Judges, who have been the brightest of mankind; We are to look upon it as more beneficial, that many guilty persons should escape unpunished, than one innocent person should suffer. The reason is, because it’s of more importance to community, that innocence should be protected, than it is, that guilt should be punished; for guilt and crimes are so frequent in the world, that all of them cannot be punished; and many times they happen in such a manner, that it is not of much consequence to the public, whether they are punished or not. But when innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, especially to die, the subject will exclaim, it is immaterial to me, whether I behave well or ill; for virtue itself is no security. And if such a sentiment as this should take place in the mind of the subject, there would be an end to all security whatsoever.

This commitment to the innocent reflects a strong emphasis on individual rights. It also seems rooted in the story most defining of Western religion, and that is the story of Jesus—falsely accused and put to death for the sake of political expediency. This has become the defining narrative and a reason to reflect on our judgment rather than react. It is why many principled conservatives are always uncomfortable with those trials in the court of public opinion where the state parades a prosecuted person and people assume this is proof of an airtight case.

You look guilty just for being in a courtroom defending from an accusation.

Tyler Robinson currently stands accused of murdering Charlie Kirk. Some have decided his guilt to the extent of forgiving him prior to his even standing trial or being given the chance to defend himself—as if there’s just no way that anyone other than him could be involved. That’s not justice; that’s denying him a presumption of innocence and might be enabling others to escape accountability for their involvement. It is better that he go free than chance a wrongful conviction—that is just Christian.

Caiaphas’s Expediency Math: Killing One to Save All

At the completely opposite end of the spectrum from the Christian West is the example of the high priest who claimed the murder of an innocent man was necessary to save Israel from destruction:

Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, “You know nothing at all! You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.”

 (John 11:49-50 NIV)

This may very well be the origin point of trolley problem moral reasoning, where a hypothetical situation is proposed in which an intervention will cost fewer lives. If we just switch the track, this fictional trolley only kills one rather than multiple people. And it seems very reasonable. Isn’t it better when more people survive?

Caiaphas reasoned it was better to kill one Jesus to save Israel.  But it didn’t work out that way. The entire nation—along with their temple and sacrificial system—was forever destroyed in 70 AD. The high priest’s moral reasoning was compromised and wrong. It did not save Israel to kill one man and may well have been part of what eventually led to the destruction of Jerusalem. Those who did not accept the way of Jesus continued, after his ministry ended, to kill his followers and resist their civil authorities. Had they taken one moment to reflect and reconsider their plan to kill their way to peace, they may have survived intact rather than be spread to the corners of the empire.

The problem with killing one—without a just cause, to secure the future—is that it usually doesn’t end there. Kill one and you’ll kill ten; if you kill ten, you’ll kill 100, until soon it is millions upon millions. We see this in the campaign against Gaza. Tens of thousands of children are slaughtered and this is being justified as a war against terror. The reality is that it may very well create the backlash that will make the Zionist project untenable as people see this notion of blood guilt and collective punishment as repulsive. This is not compatible with the Christian values of the West and will lead to our destruction if the escalation of war is not rejected.

The world is better when we don’t play God and use the expediency math. If you’re okay killing one innocent person, you’re now an enemy of all humanity. And if you are willing to kill one, then the second and third come much easier. Innocent life should always be protected—whether it is the life of Jesus, be it the “enemies'” children, or the  unborn. Pro-life means no excuses for the IDF that don’t equally apply to Hamas. If it is okay for the Zionist regime to kill scores of civilians as “collateral damage” for every militant killed—where even the Israelis admit the victims of their onslaught are 83% civilians—why mourn when it is just a handful in Bondi?

Schlanger, brandishing a rifle, was 100% affiliated with those killing civilians in Gaza.  By the IDF standard, he is equally guilty because of his proximity and sympathies.

The best protection of innocent people, like your own, is to oppose all killing of innocent people no matter the color of their skin or the clothes they wear. If the IDF can kill a journalist claiming they are “Hamas with a camera” or “Hamas-affiliated,” then why is it wrong for Eli Schlanger, who has materially aided a genocide, to be targeted along with his associates? We need to reject this math of expediency no matter who is using it, or we can’t be upset when what goes around finally comes around.

Abraham’s Plea for Mercy: Sparing the Many for the Few Righteous

Now we can go way back, to the book of Genesis, where the world’s most powerful monotheistic religions find their foundation, and this man of faith named Abraham. We join him prior to the destruction of Sodom and have this interesting exchange:

Then the Lord said, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do?  Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation, and all nations on earth will be blessed through him.  For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing what is right and just, so that the Lord will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him.”  Then the Lord said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.”  The men turned away and went toward Sodom, but Abraham remained standing before the Lord. Then Abraham approached him and said: “Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? 

(Genesis 18:17-23 NIV)

Abraham’s opening question, in the passage above, tells you a whole lot about his moral reasoning. But before that you basically have the old covenant explained in brief: The blessing that was being bestowed on Abraham had to do with “doing what is right and just” or not simply being a blood relative of him, which is something that Jesus and the Apostles explained over and over to those who saw their genetic tie to the patriarch as a sort of entitlement and did not act justly or mercifully as he did.

Continuing in the text, take time to contrast the expediency math of Caiaphas with the following:

What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it?  Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?” The Lord said, “If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake.” Then Abraham spoke up again: “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes, what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole city for lack of five people?” “If I find forty-five there,” he said, “I will not destroy it.” Once again he spoke to him, “What if only forty are found there?” He said, “For the sake of forty, I will not do it.” Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak. What if only thirty can be found there?” He answered, “I will not do it if I find thirty there.”  Abraham said, “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, what if only twenty can be found there?” He said, “For the sake of twenty, I will not destroy it.” Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?” He answered, “For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it.”  When the Lord had finished speaking with Abraham, he left, and Abraham returned home.

(Genesis 18:24-33 NIV)

Abraham, after expressing his concern for the innocent, offers an opening bid at fifty righteous. Will God spare the entire wicked city for just fifty? And the first thing that is obvious is his humility, pleading with “I am nothing but dust and ashes” and showing his attitude before God. Second is that his orientation is toward the sparing of innocent life even if it means the evil people of the city of Sodom escape deserved judgment. This is in line with Blackstone’s ratio and in total opposition to Caiaphas, who argued to sacrifice rather than to protect the righteous one. Eventually Abraham concedes, and it makes more sense just to evacuate those righteous—nevertheless the righteous are not destroyed with the wicked.

So why is this account in Genesis?

Why is God engaged in a negotiation with a mere man?

The answer is that this anecdote is here for a reason, and that is to be instructive. The author of Genesis isn’t just telling us that Abraham was righteous—they’re giving us instruction on how to be righteous. To have the same disposition as Abraham, that’s the way to be a child of Abraham, and the path of righteousness that leads to the blessings through God’s promise. Chosen means you believe and obey the Lord. You can’t claim to be children of God, or of Abraham, if you truly share nothing in common with them in terms of your behavior or spirit. Genesis is telling us what that looks like in practice.

Christian Orientation Towards Mercy and Humanity is Truly Abrahamic.

In traversing these three moments—from courtrooms shaped by Christian reflection on an innocent’s crucifixion, to the high priest’s fateful expediency that failed to save his nation, and back to Abraham’s humble plea for mercy amid judgment—we uncover a profound reality: The orientation of the Christian perspective, underpinning American rights, is directly the opposite of the ideological lineage of Caiaphas.

The commitment, in faith, to protecting that one innocent life in a crowd of evil is to be a son or daughter of Abraham.  Those who do the opposite, who are willing to sacrifice the innocent for sake of expediency, carry none of the character of Abraham and cannot be the heirs of anything promised to him.  They must first repent of their sin—then they can be blessed, with all nations, through the one singular seed of Abraham (Gal 3:16) which is Christ Jesus.

Going back to the start and those ethics ingrained in us through a religiously derived culture and our assumptions, those who have rejected Christ and are completely willing to kill innocent people to accomplish ends are also going to manifest the other evil traits of Proverbs 6:16-19:

There are six things the Lord hates, seven that are detestable to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false witness who pours out lies and a person who stirs up conflict in the community.

Those of us raised in an Anabaptist church got a strong dose of the Gospel according to Matthew and were taught that speech should be simple and truthful.  Let your yea be yes, and nay be nay is about truly honest conversation and credibility without relying on oaths.  We were told to have a peaceable spirit and merciful approach with all people—to be humble.  

This is an orientation that many of Christian faith may believe is universal.  Except it is not.  Ethno-supremacist pride is okay with those of certain ideologies, deception for sake of gaining an upper hand is looked at like a virtue, they look at their ability to trick you as proof they are superior, and sow the seeds of division covertly not to be caught—like this example:

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

 (Overview above by Grok, read: False Flag)

Imagine having a friend who deliberately set you up for a fight against another person by telling them that you said something about them.  My son had a bully do this to him on the bus and this is exactly what so-called ‘greatest ally’ tried to do to the US.  For the Zionist regime, and Mossad, conducting the terror operation via a Pakistani proxy simply was not enough.  They wanted Iran to think the attacks originated with the US in order to provoke a reaction.  And this is how the world becomes a cesspool, all because the Iranians won’t stand idle while Palestinians are deprived of land and human rights.

Deviousness is not exclusive to the children of Caiaphas.  But there’s no stops for those willing to kill innocent people for the sake of expediency.  And a partnership with them is only going to undermine the foundation of our civilization.  The US and ‘Christian’ West have already lost their moral reputation for this unholy alliance.  We need to repent and return to holding evil men accountable and protecting the innocent or all will be lost—we can’t exempt some from a standard of normal decency without also damaging all of Christendom.

Motte-and-bailey Fallacy and a Better Defense of Jewish People

Standard

The US House passed a resolution which decried a rise in anti-semitism and declared in the text that “anti-Zionism is antisemitism.”  Which is to say any criticism of this form of blood and soil nationalism can be misconstrued as a hatred of Jewish people.  If you think that the displacement of the indigenous people living in the West Bank by settlers coming from New Jersey is immoral and wrong?  Well, congratulations, because you are now an anti-Semite!

It’s an absolute absurdity. 

But it is also part of a general strategy of using Jewish people, as a whole, as a human shield for a supremacist ideology that many Jews entirely reject.  And, furthermore, this conflating Jewish identity with the Zionist state is contributing to a rise in actual anti-Jewish sentiment around the world.  It is very disturbing to see a vile ideology trying to avoid the rebuke that it most certainly deserves by wearing Jewish identity as a mask for what it truly is. 

Zionism is just blood and soil nationalism using ancient history as a cover story no different than those who called themselves the third Rome.

Zionism is not the same thing as Judiasm and thus taking an anti-Zionist position is not hatred of Jews.  Just like we can both be opposed to a political party and still not be unAmerican, we can oppose a Zionist state of Israel in favor of a country where all people of all faiths have the same rights—where indigenous people are not harassed or killed so settlers can steal their land.  It is okay to hate a regime of rape, theft, murder and collective punishment.  It is also okay to hold those accountable who perpetrate war crimes calling it defense.

What this conflating is is the Motte-and-bailey fallacy (also a strategy) where you pair a position that is defensible with one that is not.  In other words, you say something like “Israel has a right to defend itself,” which everyone will generally agree with, and then use this statement to defend the IDF knowingly bombing children in Gaza.  The two things are not the same.  Defense and killing babies are two vastly different things.  If a neighbor, from an apartment complex near me, assaulted me, and then I go burn down his whole building in response, nobody will accept that this is a defensive action—it is just murder.

This strategy of hiding Zionism behind the Jewish ethnicity and faith comes 100% at the expense of innocent Jews who have no connection to the modern state of Israel.  Merging Jewish identity with Zionism and Zionist atrocities only serves to feed anti-Jewish sentiment.  Decoupling the two words is separating a hostage from a hijacker and focuses our critique on the bad actors who falsely claim to speak for all Jews.  The best way to protect from riding anti-Jewish sentiment is to hold Zionists to account rather than allow them to hide behind Jewish suffering.

Four Ways To Fight Anti-Semitism:

1) Apply opposition to anti-semitism to all Semitic people.  The word Semite is derived from the language people use.  Specifically Arabic, Hebrew, and Aramaic.  The rights of all people, indigenous Muslim or Christian, as well as Jews, should be protected.  It is anti-semitic to argue Palestinian lives and the lives of Arab neighbors, are worth less than that of European settlers.  The Zionists have not only hijacked Judiasm and the land, but the word Semitic as well—we need the term to be returned to original use.

2) Make the Holy Lands a safe refuge for all good people again.  All Abrahamic religions have significant ties to the territory where a modern state of Israel is formed.  Christian and Muslim communities which existed for centuries are under threat by the invading settlers.  The first Christians were Semites—Jewish coverts—so why are we privileging only one religious group on a land home to Christians and other Semitic people?

3) Stop protecting the bad people simply on the basis of religious identity.  This applies just as much to any religion, but especially to a country that regularly shields evil people on the basis of their Jewish-ness and loyalty to the apartheid regime.

Jonathan Pollard, a US Citizen, who stole nuclear secrets and gave them to Israel (who, in turn, sold them to the Soviet Union), was a traitor to the degree that would be hanged for treason in times past.  But he got life in prison and was released after thirty years due to the lobbying pressure of the Israeli government.  He arrived in Israel, on the private jet of Sheldon Adelson (the late husband of the Trump mega-donor Miriam Adelson) to a hero’s welcome under “right to return.”  In fact, Pollard was greeted by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu after kissing tarmac in Tel Aviv.

There are also similar stories of corrupt men fleeing to Israel from Ukraine.  Pedophiles and rapists, of Jewish identity, are granted this same escape from justice by “right to return” and an Israeli policy of protecting all Jews regardless of if they are good or evil.  This undermines the trust in Jewish people worldwide.  It contributes to the othering of Jews and breeds resentment and contempt.  Sure, two separate standards may be okay for a racial supremacist, but it is totally unacceptable for those who reject all identity politics and tribalism.

I would stand shoulder to shoulder with a good person who happens to be a Jew, Muslim or any other religion over a person who claims to be a Christian and yet does not love their neighbors.  To me, those who confuse genetics with goodness or their own tribal identity with innocence are the problem.  A truly good person cares about genuinely good character—and not skin color or religious costume.  

Jews are safer when Zionists abusers are made accountable.  The world is a better place when nobody puts tribe over a commitment to justice for all people.  We don’t need the Holy Lands to be a haven for the world’s traitors, pedophiles and identity thieves.

3) Treat AIPAC as a foreign lobby and trim back the Zionist control over our political institutions.  If Congress were taking the same amount of money from supporters of any other country in the world that they did from AIPAC they would be in jail.  How is it not collusion?  However, you’re not going to hear about this scandal on CBS News, after it was bought by Zionist billionaires, with a new editor-in-chief Bari Weiss.  Nor will the truth be told on TikTok after it was scooped up by the same people—now moderated by a former IDF soldier searching for ‘antisemitic’ content which could be anything that tells the truth about Israel.  

Frankly, the US desperately needs a policy of de-Zionization after years of our Middle-East mayhem.  When we have US ambassadors to Israel, like Mike Huckabee, meeting with a man convicted of treason, and Presidents unable to act independently from a foreign regime—even when that foreign regime kills more children than it foes true combatants—drastic measures need to be taken.  We can’t simply vote this out.  When then the candidates for mayor of NYC show fealty to a foreign nation this goes beyond normal corruption.  There truly needs to be more prosecutions for actual treason.

A Better Jewish Defense Strategy 

The current Zionist strategy—the fusing Jewish identity with an apartheid regime, shielding war criminals and traitors behind the label “Jew,” and branding every critic an anti-Semite—has sadly produced the most dangerous environment for Jews in decades: surging street-level hatred, synagogue shootings, and a global resurgence of real anti-Jewish bigotry fueled by rage at Israel’s actions. The four steps above break that fuse.

When Judaism is decisively decoupled from Zionism, when “Semitic” again and protects Palestinians and Lebanese as fiercely as Israelis, when the Holy Land is a shared home rather than an ethnic fortress, and when Jewish criminals no longer enjoy impunity under “right of return” or AIPAC protection, the primary pretext for hating Jews evaporates. Jews become what most already are: Just ordinary citizens judged by their character, and not scapegoats for a supremacist project most never voted for.

Paradoxically, the safest future for Jewish people is not more tanks, walls, or lobbying billions—it is the complete dismantling of the ideological human shield that today places them in the line of fire.

Israel-First Doesn’t Choose Our Future – We Do

Standard

If you create a vacuum you don’t always get to decide who fills it. Charlie Kirk was killed while speaking on a college tour to promote a brand of conservativism. Whether you do or do not believe the official narrative about who killed him and why, his death has left a void in the public square. Yes, certainly the Turning Point USA organization has grown as a result and buzz about “the next Charlie Kirk” started right after the assassination—even too soon. But there’s one winner and it is not on the list of approved candidates to be his heir.

The first time I heard the term “Groyperism” was from the mouth of Ben Shapiro. I’m not sure if this was before or after Shapiro and other ‘conservative’ Zio-bots had started to target Tucker Carlson for elimination or not, but it is really weird to see these so-called conservatives run a very coordinated smear campaign to silence critics of Israeli policy with charges of “white nationalism” or “neo-Nazi”—and sounding just like the woke left. What ever happened to the marketplace of ideas, debating bad ideas with better ideas, or carrying on the legacy of Charlie Kirk who would engage in discussion rather than try to deplatform those who disagree?

Whatever the case, Mark Levin and the rest of these Zionist mouthpieces come off as shrill and unhinged. What we’re seeing is a Streisand effect. The more they screech in their protest and try to brand with their labels, as the left does, the more people have begun to question. I have never had a reason to listen to Fuentes before. But much of what he says sounds perfectly reasonable and is at least not as bad as turning a blind eye to the bombing of babies. I mean, let’s just put things into perspective.

To be clear, they are not going after Tucker for his interview with a popular social media personality with an off-color Zoomer sense of humor. No, that’s just the excuse. They are going after him because he questioned Israel First policies and why we should go to war with Iran. They can’t assassinate him, that would be too obvious, but they can try to drive a wedge between him and GOP by claiming he’s gone over the edge. But it isn’t Tucker that’s the problem. He’s not at all neo-nazi or anti-semitic—he is just not one of those taking Bibi’s bribes.

Israel—rape capital of the world

Some of us simply notice the IDF bombing children and sodomizing prisoners and do not want our resources used for this. Some of us have noticed that Trump took millions from Miriam Adelson, a prominent Zionist, and that he is more focused on the national interests of Israel than he is our economic future. We’ve noticed how Charlie Kirk was under extreme pressure to censor certain voices, including Tucker, costing millions in contributions to his Turning Point USA, right before his public execution.

That Washington Post runs an article about the Republican’s “neo-Nazi problem” while not saying a word about Sen Lindsay Graham chortling “We’re killing all the right people, and we’re cutting your taxes.” This at the Republican Jewish Coalition Annual Leadership Summit. We have yet to see the media mouthpieces of the political regime condemn vile and disgusting Randy Fine, a Representative out of Florida, who advocates for the complete annihilation of two million people—kill every man, woman and child. But extremists are not a threat to the Republican party?

Christianity teaches to turn the other cheek and love your enemies, but the Talmud says the opposite, it says “If someone comes to kill you, kill them first.” And I’ve seen this teaching being applied to Zohran Mamdani, the mayor-elect of NYC, or that he be given this treatment—that he can be preemptively killed for not backing Israel! And then they wonder why many good people are backing away from the Zionist movement? They’re basically giving themselves a license to kill anyone who speaks against the violence they do—calling it defense.

The Real Debate: Debate or Kill

Yesterday I opened up Facebook and there was paid content from a group that is trying to cancel Ms. Rachel over her opposition to killing babies. They basically accused her of being in league with Hamas. A terrorist. The only proof that they offer is her alleged alignment with Motaz Azaiza, a Palestinian activist who is opposed to Hamas and the armed resistance in Gaza. For Zionists any level of disagreement is equivalent to being a Nazi and eventually a death sentence.

Ms. Rachel is Hamas?

The Levin side believes in things like blood guilt and collective punishment, that guilt is in a challengers DNA, whereas Tucker sees all individuals as redeemable (including the likes of Fuentes and Levin) and attempts to employ reason rather than violence as the means to further his ends. Levin can only cancel or kill. He sees himself as being a part of a superior race—a chosen people—which exempts him from needing to talk to the other side. To him anyone who would dare to disagree is less than an animal and shouldn’t be allowed to live. Tucker, on the other hand, literally invited Levin to join him on a far larger platform so they can discuss their differences.

Tucker represents the Christian worldview and articulates it well if given a chance to speak. Levin, by contrast, reminds me of a a man I sat next to on a flight from NYC. He was going to celebrate Passover in Israel, a very crude man (yet very intelligent) and he made for a very interesting conversation. I was immediately taken aback by his initial “I’m a racist” announcement and enjoyed telling him of my German heritage after, in the course of our conversation, he tells me he hates all Germans. It made me think of the difference in religious traditions. There is no “love your enemies” in Judiasm. You kill or conquer.

What Levin and other Zionists truly are is Jewish supremacists. They don’t see the people outside of their group as equals or even necessarily human. You’re like a dog. If you are obedient they’ll let you eat and if you are not they’ll put you down. You don’t have a discussion with lower lifeforms—you don’t need to answer to them or treat them as you would an equal. That’s why Levin is incapable of even understanding the Olive Branch offered to him by Carlson. To him it’s an insult. To him it is an affront to his position as superior.

The entire New Testament is basically an attack on Jewish supremacy. When Jesus highlights the faith of a Roman he’s hitting his audience where it hurts. He tells them point blank that they’re not the children of Abraham, that those who reject the Son do not have the Father and are children of their father the devil:

Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me. Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me!

(John 8:42-45 NIV)

Now even quoting this could get someone labeled as anti-Semetic. But Jesus is not talking about blood guilt or their ethnicity, he is confronting their rejection of Him and the Gospel of reconciliation he offered to all who believe. St Peter welcomed Gentiles into the church and even relaxed the rules of Jewish identity for converts. St Paul, like Jesus instructing to lend unto Caeser what is Caeser’s, legitimizes Roman authority as a minister of God:

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

(Romans 13:1-7 NIV)

The Jews hated Roman authority and they rebelled against it. But St Paul legitimizes it saying that if they enforce a moral standard then it is good. This goes against right or wrong based on what tribe. Zionists cry if there own are harmed, make an appeal to morality, and yet celebrate when a prisoner is raped on camera by an IDF guard. They have two different standards. Sodomy is okay when it is against someone standing up to their domination. But why resistance to their rule makes you a terrorist. However, St Paul says even Pagans authorities need to be obeyed if they do good. This concept goes directly against those who saw their own as good no matter what they did.

Christianity welcomes all. It tells us “there is neither Jew nor Gentile” (Gal 3:28), and abandons divisive identity to embrace the example of Jesus Christ. Zionism is the exact opposite. It says those who are not part of their chosen race have no rights and can either choose servitude or death. When you make the same claim to rights they will kill you. Israel has just passed a law that it is okay to execute Palestinians—but Jews are completely exempted. And this is not an apartheid state? Really?!?

Two Versions of America First

Carlson and Fuentes, while lumped together by the Zio-bots, are two very different ideas of America First. Carlson is a classic liberal or coexist conservative. He believes in a US where “all men are created equal” and there is no superior or inferior race. Fuentes, is a bit more like an Uno Reverse card and does to them what they do to us.

Fuentes is part of the generation tired of being told white men are the problem and fighting fire of identity politics with the fire of his own brand. Carlson, in contrast, is attempting the Christian approach—applying Romans 12:20-21:

“If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Whereas the Talmud advises the exact opposite—which is to eliminate perceived threats through preemptive violence—and the firebrand Fuentes answers the Jewish supremacists with his own parody version of them,  the Christian response is more of a love bomb. While identity politics can’t overcome identity politics and those who live by the sword will also die by it, this third way option offers potential to break these cycles of tit-for-tat violence and escalation. Had Israel tried the same approach at any point on the past 77 years there may not have ever been a need for the two-state solution. And, while I don’t blame Fuentes for his reactionary identity politics, there is not much of a way forward in his approach.

This is a crisis point for Western civilization, we either allow ourselves to remain vassals of a Jewish supremacist regime, or we find an American identity that mirrors the same attitude of the Zionists, or we pursue a path of peace by putting the words of Jesus into practice. Yes, turnabout is fairplay—and the Fuentes types have as much right to defend themselves as Israel does. But the project of humanity isn’t served by this, we end up as divided warring factions trying to cancel or kill enough of the other side to win—and everyone ends up a loser. Or we act in faith and choose a path of empathy for all rather than selective love and multiple standards based on identity group.

This is what makes the attacks against the Tucker Carlson types so reprehensible. He is trying to talk to and find common ground with all parties in the conflict. The point is to build bridges not burn them.  Fuentes, who has trashed Carlson in the past, was willing to sit down and talk. Levin, by contrast, tried to act as if Carlson (who has a social media following that absolutely dwarfs his own) is a weirdo and somehow trying to gain an audience by hosting him—a total inversion of the truth. There is this very clear pattern that every accusation made by the Zio-bots is a confession.

But I digress. Those who case about Israel should stop alienating the moderate voices that aren’t actually a threat to an Israel that is governed morally and doesn’t show clear partiality based on ethnicity or religion. The people who reject the reasonable voices—or accuse all who dare to question them “Nazis” or “anti-Semites”—they’re a threat to everything built in the time since the Old Testament. It is a regressive position, a return to tribalism, and decidedly anti-Christ.

Fool Me Once, Shame On You

We have a choice. We can choose not to see any of this, plug our ears and pretend Judeo-Christian is not an oxymoron—kiss the wall so to speak. Or we choose the way of Fuentes, fighting Jewish supremacy with our own tribal identity based loyalty and go down that eye for an eye path until we’re all blind. Or we take Tucker’s listen to all sides approach and show our loyalty only to the values of our Sovereign. There is no going back. Charlie Kirk is dead. The era that he represents is over. There can be no union of light and darkness, no yoking of believer and unbeliever, we choose Christ or we are fallen away from truth.

The mask has slipped completely from the faces of Mark Levin, Ben Shapiro, Randy Fine, and the loudest voices of the Zionist wing of American conservatism—revealing, in the stark words of Isaiah 5:20, those who “call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.” For decades this sleeper cell has cloaked themselves in the familiar language of constitutional liberty, and preached free speech absolutism, promoted so-called Judeo-Christian values—decrying campus cancel culture and leftist deplatforming as the death of the republic. Yet the moment a conservative dares question unconditional aid to Israel—the moment Tucker Carlson hosts a dissident voice—the very same men reach for the same weapons that they once swore to destroy: smears, leaks, boycotts, and ritual excommunication.

Mark Levin, who spent years positioning himself as the fiercest defender of open discourse against Big Tech censorship, now leaks private text messages calling Tucker Carlson a “little bastard” and “modern-day David Duke,” then storms his radio show in November 2025 to declare that anyone who interviews Nick Fuentes has “no place in the conservative movement”—this a purity test delivered with all the sanctimonious fury of a 2019 Berkeley sophomore demanding a speaker be banned. The constitutional scholar who once thundered his version of “the answer to bad speech is more speech” now insists the answer to speech that he dislikes is coordinated ostracism.

Ben Shapiro, the man who built an empire mocking trigger warnings and safe spaces, devotes an entire week of shows in November 2025 to branding Carlson an “intellectual coward” and “Nazi normalizer,” tweeting “No to cowards like Tucker Carlson who normalize their trash,” and urging the right to treat him as radioactive. The same Shapiro who once said “facts don’t care about your feelings” now deals exclusively in guilt-by-association and emotional blackmail, demanding that conservatives choose between loyalty to America First and loyalty to a foreign government’s PR narrative—no debate, no nuance, just shunning.

Randy Fine, the Florida legislator lionized by the GOP establishment, goes further still: in early November he labels Carlson “the most dangerous man in America” and “leader of a modern-day Hitler Youth,” not for violence or lawbreaking, but for the crime of hosting an interview Fine dislikes. This from a man whose own rhetoric in his speeches and on social media has included celebrating the starvation of Gaza civilians and declaring that even Palestinian children are terrorists for being born Palestinian.

The mask is not slipping here; it has been hurled to the ground and stomped on.This is the great revelation of 2025: the loudest “anti-cancel culture warriors” on the right were never opposed to cancel culture itself—only to cancel culture directed at them. When the target is a paleoconservative, a Christian nationalist, or simply an America-First voice that refuses to put Tel Aviv’s interests above Washington’s, the old tools of the far left—deplatforming, blacklisting, public shaming—are suddenly presented as holy instruments of righteousness.

Why this incredible reversal?

It’s truly not a reversal.

It is a revelation.

What we are witnessing is not hypocrisy in the ordinary sense. No, they are wolves in sheep’s skin and this is the final exposure of an Israel-First worldview that is truly in total opposition to conservative in the American grain. Christian conservatism—rooted in the universalism of the Gospel and the natural rights tradition of the Founders, along with a deep suspicion of foreign entanglements—has always held that sin is sin, that mercy is extended even to enemies, and that no man and no nation stands above judgment. The mask that has fallen reveals something older, something tribal: a politics of blood and soil transplanted from the Levant, only dressed for decades in borrowed Reaganite clothing.

The choice cannot be clearer. We cannot remain neutral. We believe that everyone still breathing is redeemable, like the Apostle Paul, or we revert to belief in blood guilt—and that even babies can be branded as terrorists and brutally killed. We can believe that a Jew named Jesus is the seed of Abraham that saves the world or we side with those who say he was a false prophet boiling in feces. We believe in the kingdom that is built on supernatural love or one that which is a product of weapons of war and fights (in various forms of disguise) for the destruction of every Christian value we claim to hold dear.

This is what Zionists celebrate.

It may only be a coincidence that Charlie Kirk was killed shortly after enraging his Israel First donors by refusing to disassociate with Tucker Carlson and Candice Owens.  Maybe it did not matter to them that he felt a need to abandon the pro-Israel cause?  But I know Kirk wouldn’t join these Zio-bot zealots in their campaign to cancel Carlson for talking to everyone.

The Christian and Civilized Slaughter

Standard

In the aftermath of the Israeli sneak attack on Iran, this being only the lastest of many provocations, some of my friends defended this move as necessity for the protection of Christian civilization. I mean, after all, there are crowds that chant “death to Israel” and “death to America” and couldn’t possibly be talking about the foreign policies or political regimes, right? It’s not like we dream about draining the swamp ourselves, is it?

But of the outrages of the Iranian response to yet another act of aggression—a missile landing near a hospital had the Zionist state going full propaganda mode. They called it deliberate, criminal, barbaric and gave this as the reason why there needs to be regime change in Tehran. The only thing is, only a day or so earlier the IDF had struck several Iranian hospitals and they have continued to do so even while calling it uncivilized for their enemy to do the same in response.

Did Iran target a hospital?  Take a look at this picture and tell me what you see.

The American ‘Christian’ public is bigoted and easily bamboozled. They couldn’t tell you the difference between a Persian or an Arab—yet will tell you with total confidence that Iran has it coming while totally ignoring all of the atrocious acts of their own side in this conflict. When Israel began their Gaza campaign and deliberately struck a hospital, they justified it by claiming that there was a Hamas tunnel under it. The claim was not independently verified. Since then 31 of the 36 health care facilities in this occupied and besieged Palestinian territory have been severely damaged or destroyed.

It is hard not to see a systematic effort to eliminate access to food and medicine in Gaza. Children with limbs blown off from IDF bombs or sniper bullets endure surgery without anesthesia if they get help at all. If you’re okay with that, maybe you’re also fine with beating detained medical personnel and an orthopedic surgeon being raped to death while detained by the IDF? This is a pattern, it is not accidental, in Gaza they’ve killed more Palestinian journalists than were killed in all of WW2. They’ve attacked and slaughtered EMTs, burying them along with their ambulances—who does this?

https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/QB75LB

There has been no accountability for what Israel does. The indiscriminate campaign in Gaza has potentially taken hundreds of thousands of lives, the vast majority of the casualties civilians and children given that Hamas represents only a fraction of Gaza’s population. Only 7% voted for them to rule. There is absolutely no justification for what is a campaign of collective punishment and annihilation of a native people. And this did not all start October 7th—the daring and deadly incursion currently being used as an excuse for the brutal destruction that has taken place since then—it has been the pattern for decades.

The question that one must ask is this: What is so civilized about bombing children in tents?

What is Christian about starving them to death?

This is all by design — not an accident.

This one-way outrage and pretending to have the moral upper hand while doing the same or worse is a feature of the Zionist doublethink.

Israel can take boys and then detain them indefinitely for merely throwing rocks at the occupation’s military vehicles—even rape or mistreat them—but Hamas is evil for taking captives mostly as a means of bargaining to get their own people back?

Zionists cloak themselves as the defenders of democracy while using hate speech law to crush those who dissent to the collective punishment of whole populations.

Zionists will wail over the Bidas family, act as if it is the most heinous of crimes when we don’t have an independent investigation to verify the claims, and then will say nothing of the scores of families that their favorite terror regime has buried under rubble.

They claim that Islam is barbaric, both cruel to women and intrinsically violent, but then ignore the millions of innocents that they’ve starved, delimbed or incinerated—building their fake Zion on the pile of corpses.

Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. On the contrary: “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Romans 12:19-21 NIV