Featured Articles

Why a Second Trump Term May Turn Out to be a Dud: DC is still a swamp of corruption and stagnation

/in /by

Editor’s note: Posted on Substack on January 27, 2025. I am more of an optimist about Trump 2.0. However, it’s clear that if Trump 2.o is to succeed, he will have to keep control over his top officials enmeshed as they are in Conservatism Inc. that they have used to catapult themselves into prominence in the GOP. As Niño notes, “At this juncture, a strong dose of political imagination is required for America First nationalists to break out of the ossified strictures of American politics.”

Donald Trump‘s historic presidential comeback on November 5, 2024 has many political observers waiting anxiously for his inauguration on January 20, 2025. Trump’s victories in 2016 and 2024 were symbolic rejections of the prevailing neoconservative/neoliberal order in Washington. In both instances, Trump campaigned on the taboo subjects of immigration restriction, foreign policy restraint, and economic nationalism. In doing so, Trump challenged the sacraments of the liberal international order.

For individuals who were intimately involved in the anti-establishment campaigns of presidential candidates such as Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul, there was initially a degree of cautious optimism about Trump. While not ideologically perfect, Trump’s platform at least challenged the neoconservative foreign policy consensus and represented an incremental step towards retrenchment.

The first Trump administration ended up being a mixed bag due to his focus on passing conventional conservative reforms such as nominating conservative Supreme Court justices and tax cuts. The former at least yielded decent reforms such as the repeal of Roe v. Wade, the NYSRPA v. Bruen decision that liberalized gun rights nationwide, and the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College that ended affirmative action in college admissions.

That said, on the key issues of restricting mass migration and rolling back the perpetual warfare state, Trump left a lot to be desired. No genuine immigration legislation was passed — abolishing birthright citizenship, implementing an immigration moratorium, passing E-Verify, and/or scrapping chain migration — and the United States’ foreign policy apparatus and agenda stayed intact, albeit without a new war breaking out.

In effect, Trump’s first administration was a generic Republican presidency. Now, the million-dollar question is: Will Trump’s second administration be a repeat of the first? From the looks of Trump’s cabinet appointments, we’re in store for a generic Republican administration. Let’s take a peep:

1. Marco Rubio, Secretary of State

Marco Rubio is a consummate GOP establishment hack. The Florida Senator is a wily politician who knows how to deftly ride political waves. Elected at the height of the Tea Party era in 2010, Rubio initially marketed himself as a Tea Party conservative who would work to lower the size of the government. But once in office, Rubio became another generic hawkish Republican who pushed for regime change in Libya and Syria, while also calling for conflicts against emerging regional powers such as China, Iran, and Russia.

During his failed presidential run in the 2015 Republican primaries, Rubio received the support of the late-casino magnate  and pro-Israel fanatic Sheldon Adelson. Even after getting bested by Donald Trump in a humiliating manner during the 2016 election cycle, Rubio continued his regime change advocacy in the US Senate, most noteworthy, his efforts to realize regime change in countries such as Iran and Venezuela. With Rubio receiving a promotion to the Secretary of State position, he will faithfully continue the ruling class’s interventionist agenda

Like most neoconservatives and other leaders adjacent to those circles, Rubio has previously been a booster for mass migration, and was an integral part of the so-called Gang of Eight bipartisan group of Senators trying to pass amnesty during the Obama era.

Rest assured, as Secretary of State, Rubio will likely continue the Judeo-American empire’s policy of policing the globe and destabilizing countries who dare challenge “our greatest ally” in Israel.

2. Pete Hegseth, Defense Secretary

Former Fox News commentator Pete Hegseth’s nomination to serve as Defense Secretary will give the Pentagon a much more youthful and virile look, at least superficially. Donning a Deus Vult tattoo and not afraid to give woke leftists verbal lashings, Hegseth’s goal is to inject new energy into a Defense Department beleaguered by falling recruitment numbers in all branches of the US military.

Hegseth is a vocal opponent of the military’s woke turn and has been highly critical of putting women in combat roles and wants the military to be prepared for the era of Great Power competition.

However, underneath Hegseth’s bombastic exterior is just another generic Republican. Like many Republicans in the Trump era, Hegseth talks a big game about avoiding never-ending wars, but sounds and moves like a typical hawk on foreign policy issues concerning Iran and China.

It’s often forgotten that at the height of the Iraq War, Hegseth thanked Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) for his support of the United States’ ill-fated regime change venture. Moreover, during a speech at the Heritage Foundation, Hegseth called on the United States to remain the “world’s sheriff.”

Following the first Trump administration’s assassination of Iranian Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani at the start of 2020, Hegseth called for Trump to follow up with a vicious bombing campaign against Iran’s energy infrastructure, nuclear installations, and ports. His blood lust towards Iran did not end there. From his Fox News armchair, Hegseth encouraged Trump to bomb Iranian hospitals, mosques, and schools should circumstances necessitate it.

Like most of his Evangelical Christian cohort, Hegseth is a fanatic pro-Israel proponent. “This is not some mystical land that can be dismissed. It’s the story of God’s chosen people. That story didn’t end in 1776 or in 1948 or with the founding of the UN. All of these things still resonate and matter today,” Hegseth said when he was interviewed by the Jewish Press in 2016.

Hegeth’s unhinged Zionism was on full display during his Senate confirmation hearing on Jan. 14, 2025, when he was grilled about what Israel has to do to end the Gaza conflict. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AK) asked Hegseth if he views himself as a Christian Zionist, to which Hegseth responded:

I’m a Christian, and I robustly support the State of Israel and its existential defense, and the way America comes alongside them as their great ally. I support Israel destroying and killing every last member of Hamas.

The soon to be Defense Secretary has also caught the anti-China virus contaminating the halls of the DC Swamp. Hegseth maintains that China is “building an army specifically dedicated to defeating the United States of America.” Hegseth added that China has “a full spectrum, long-term view of not just regional, but global domination,” and has designs to “corner the market completely on the technological future.”

Hegseth is clearly towing the national security state line of pursuing a great power conflict with China. With Hegseth as defense chief, do not expect the United States to fully retrench from global affairs like many American voters fed up with the foreign policy status quo want to.

3. Pam Bondi, Attorney General

Trump’s nomination of Pam Bondi to serve as United States Attorney General should worry both First Amendment and Second Amendment supporters. For one, Bondi has already pushed for the revocation of visas of students protesting Israel’s ethnic cleansing campaign in Gaza.

“The thing that’s really the most troubling to me [are] these students in universities in our country, whether they’re here as Americans or if they’re here on student visas, and they’re out there saying ‘I support Hamas,'” she said in an interview with Newsmax in 2023. “Frankly they need to be taken out of our country or the FBI needs to be interviewing them right away,” Bondi added.

On gun rights, Bondi has a suspect track record. When she served as Florida Attorney General, Bondi went public about her support for red flag gun confiscation orders. Red flag orders allow law enforcement to confiscate firearms from individuals who are suspected of posing a threat to themselves or other people — all without any form of due process

At a press conference on the heels of the Parkland mass shooting of 2018, Bondi was sitting next to then-President Donald Trump where she revealed “We’re going to bring in something called the gun violence restraining order” that will allow “law enforcement [to] come in and take the guns.”

In time, then-Gov. Rick Scott (R-FL) signed SB 7026, a bill which established a bump stock ban, raised the age individuals for individuals to be able to buy a gun, and codified red flag gun confiscation orders as law in Florida. Bondi threw her support behind this blatantly unconstitutional legislation, declaring “This bill is not perfect … it’s simply the right thing to do.”

4. Kristi Noem, Secretary of Homeland Security

Kristi Noem, Trump’s nominee to head the Department of Homeland Security, can be counted on to play ball for team Israel. Back in March, Noem signed a bill into law that lumps some critiques of the state of Israel with antisemitism. Noem’s signing of this anti-free speech bill has made the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) definition of antisemitism the standard for all investigations of unfair or discriminatory practices dealing with Jewish individuals or organizations taking place in South Dakota.

Noem rationalized her signing of this bill on the premise that it would allegedly guarantee the “security of God’s chosen people.”

Like most of her Republican counterparts, Noem is allergic to using state power to combat cultural degeneracy. When Tucker Carlson was a primetime host on Fox News, he grilled Noem on her decision to partially veto a bill that would prohibit transgender athletes who were born male from participating in women’s sports, accisomg Noem of caving to the NCAA.

Noem is very much wedded to serving corporate actors under the pretext of abiding by “limited government” principles. In a similar vein, Noem resettled so-called “refugees” in South Dakota throughout 2020.

As the head of DHS, Noem can be counted on to go after so-called extremists — i.e., pro-Palestinian activists and other enemies of organized Jewry. In fairness, some deportations will occur under her watch, especially those of violent criminals. However, like most Republican programs implemented in Empire Judaica, they merely place a handbrake on trends that have already been in motion for multiple decades.

The best-case scenario we’ll see here are slight reductions in the amount of foreigners entering the country both legally and illegally. America’s demographic replacement will continue albeit at a slightly slower rate.

So much for upholding the security of the homeland.

5. Lori Chavez-DeRemer, Secretary of Labor

Trump’s Secretary of Labor nominee Lori Chavez-DeRemer was one of the few Republicans willing to work with Democrats to pass amnesty in Congress. For example, Chavez-DeRemer backed a visa worker giveaway that was snuck into a 493-page bill. This legislation would increase the number of foreign migrants being brought into displace Americans in white-collar professions.

On top of that, this legislation would reward green cards to visa workers who have been employed in American jobs or studying in the United States for 10 years. In effect, this bill would have created a system of indentured servitude that would grant countless businesses the ability to pay visa holders with green cards — as opposed to paying them a regular wage — provided they work for 10 years in the United States.

Moreover, when the Biden regime issued an executive amnesty in June 2024 that allowed roughly 550,000 illegal alien spouses and children of American citizens to obtain green cards and an eventual pathway to American citizenship, Chavez-DeRemer voted with 14 House Republicans and 202 House Democrats to pass this measure.

Although Chavez-DeRemer has made positive gestures towards Big Labor organizations like the Teamsters, any form of pro-worker advocacy would go to waste should her pro-mass migration track record continue to guide her policymaking as the head of the Labor Department. After all, mass migration is the mortal enemy of blue-collar workers due to its proven tendency of depressing worker wages.

6. Mike Waltz, National Security Adviser

Mike Waltz is another hawk with questionable views on a host of geopolitical issues. Waltz has been an enthusiastic support of increased defense spending. In 2021, Waltz told the Jerusalem Insider in 2021 that the United States can’t afford to slash defense spending because it would negatively impact the United States’ ability to “deter and compete with China, Russia, Iran, North Korea and global terrorism.”

In an op-ed he published in 2023, Waltz cranked up the fearmongering with respect to Russia declaring that if Russia defeated Ukraine on the battlefield, it would then proceed to attack NATO member nations and kick off World War III.

Waltz is not a principled non-interventionist on Russia. For one, he believes that further US aid should be “contingent on European burden sharing and equal European assistance going forward.” The national security adviser’s approach is all about conditions. If Russia refuses to negotiate with Ukraine, Waltz believes the United States is justified in sending more weapons to Ukraine.

While Waltz’s views about the United States’ funding of Ukraine have changed over the course of the Russo-Ukrainian war, Waltz said during a Fox News interview that he had a productive meeting with the previous National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan. He bragged that the Trump transition team has been working “hand in glove” with the Biden regime.

“For our adversaries out there that think this is a time of opportunity that they can play one administration off the other, they’re wrong, and we are — we are hand in glove. We are — we are one team with the United States in this transition,” Waltz emphasized.

As for the Middle East, Waltz is a fervent Zionist who wants Israel to achieve hegemony in the region. Prior to the latest flare up in Gaza, Waltz said to the Jewish Insider that the United States needed to take more proactive measures to deter Iran and its proxies, while also economically strangling it. He cited the assassination of Major Gen. Qassem Soleimani as an example of establishing deterrence.

When Israel was involved in tit-for-tat missile attacks with Iran last year, Waltz suggested that Israel should have attacked Kharg Island, Iran’s principal oil terminal, and its nuclear installations at Natanz. With Waltz in the mix, foreign policy conflicts will always be one deck during a Second administration.

7. Elise Stefanik, Ambassador to the United Nations

 

While she was the representative of New York’s 21st congressional district from 2015 to the present., soon-to-be United Nations ambassador Elise Stefanik had a typical pro-Zionist conservative track record and funding base.

Stefanik received over $700,000 from pro-Israel groups in the 2023-2024 congressional cycle. Interestingly, Stefanik received close to $30,000 in funding from Apollo Global Management, an asset management firm founded by Jewish investors Leon Black, Josh Harris, and Marc Rowan. Rowan, in particular, has been vocal about crushing university protests against the Jewish state’s ethnic cleansing campaign in Gaza.

Stefanik’s Israel First advocacy in the aftermath of the October 7 attacks, from her grilling of university presidents to calls to clamp down on student protests, won her many friends in the pro-Zionist set of organized Jewry. The corporate media has referred to Stefanik as a “gift to Netanyahu” and the “battering ram of Trump’s ‘Israel First’ policy.”

To add insult to injury, Stefanik is a mass migration booster. In 2021, Stefanik voted for the “Farm Workforce Modernization Act.” It would have granted amnesty to illegal alien farmworkers and streamline the federal H-2A visa program for new agricultural workers entering the country. According to NumbersUSA, one of the leading immigration restriction organizations in the United States, Stefanik has a sub-par 47% career rating in terms of how she has voted on immigration related issues.

 

8. Mike Huckabee, United States Ambassador to Israel

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) and current United States Ambassador to Israel makes no bones about his support for the State of Israel. He has described himself as an “unapologetic, unreformed Zionist.”

On the issue of Palestinian territories, he has referred to the West Bank as “Judea and Samaria” — a clear move to appeal to the religious zealot factions of the Israeli Right — and has even denied the very existence of a Palestinian identity. He added, “The idea that they have a long history, dating back hundreds or thousands of years, is not true.”

Israel can count on Huckabee to fully support its Old Testament fantasies of creating a Greater Israel and look the other way when it engages in geopolitical perfidy abroad.

9. Brooke Rollins, Secretary of Agriculture

Brooke Rollins is a seasoned veteran of the conservative think tank complex, From 2003 to 2018, Rollins served as president and CEO of the Texas Public Policy Foundation. In 2018, Rollins was brought onto the Trump administration to serve as Trump’s assistant for governmental and technology initiatives in addition to becoming a member of the Office of American innovation.

As a seasoned functionary of Conservatism Inc, economic reductionism became part of her M.O. In other words, all social maladies ranging from rampant crime to mass migration could be simply solved by implementing tax cuts, deregulating the economy, and importing more “skilled migrants.”

Rollins played a key role in pushing for Trump to sign the First Step Act in 2018, a veritable jailbreak bill that allowed for an alarming number of violent criminals to go back to the streets and wreak havoc. What’s more, at the height of the George Floyd unrest when the nation was being ripped apart by leftist militants and all manner of criminals, she spouted politically correct platitudes about how the nation was “in mourning for the senseless death of George Floyd and the senseless loss of livelihood all over this country” instead of calling for heavy-handed measures to quell the NGO-backed saturnalia of the Summer of Floyd.

To boot, Rollins is a mass migration zealot who is on record stating she doesn’t “know of anyone who is against” significantly “expanding the number of visas for highly skilled workers.” In the capacity of Secretary of Agriculture, Rollins would likely look for underhanded ways to expand legal immigration in the farm sector at working-class Americans’ expense.

Brace Yourselves for Disappointment

Donald Trump vowed to end the NATO-funded proxy war in Ukraine in 24 hours. However, after threatening to further sanction Russia if it did not enter a negotiated settlement with Ukraine, Trump appears to be fine with continuing to escalate tensions with Russia. As I’ve previously documented, Trump’s track record on Russia is quite hawkish, contrary to media depictions of him as a Russian puppet. All things considered, Russo-American relations will likely remain tense.

With respect to the Middle East, Trump remains committed to defending Israel. Despite a ceasefire reached between the Israelis and Hamas, Trump has already given the green light to sending Israel thousands of 2,000-pound bombs and has apparently been in talks with Israel to resettle Palestinians into other countries such as Egypt and Jordan — ethnic cleansing by another name.

Trump’s team has also been in talks to expand the Abraham Accords, with a particular focus on normalizing relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia. Seeing through the rosy talk about heightened cooperation and moving towards a bright future, the Abraham Accords are merely a scheme to build an anti-Iran balancing coalition. Though Israel’s live-streamed genocide of the Palestinians since October 7 has horrified the Arab Street, thus making Gulf Arab leaders leery of deepening ties with the Jewish State. Nevertheless, the gaggle of neocons and Israel Firsters surrounding Trump makes a potential conflict with Iran a not-so far-fetched prospect in the next few years.

On immigration, Trump has been a mixed bag. On Day 1 he issued an executive order to get rid of birthright citizenship. Unfortunately, this measure will be tied up in the courts as a federal judge in Washington state recently blocked Trump’s order. This issue will be litigated in the courts for some time before the Supreme Court finally rules on the matter.

More concerning is Trump’s stance on H-1B visas. These visas let “skilled” foreigners employed in specialty occupations enter the country on a temporary basis. This is a godsend for Big Business, which is always craving new sources of cheap labor. Trump, himself, is also partial to H-1Bs. In correspondence with The New York Post, Trump said, “I’ve always liked the visas, I have always been in favor of the visas. That’s why we have them.”

“I have many H-1B visas on my properties. I’ve been a believer in H-1B. I have used it many times. It’s a great program,” he added.

One can only guess how a Trump second term will pan out. But if the long history of Republican presidential administrations disappointing their constituents is a guide, it’s no stretch to believe that Trump 2.0 will end up being a complete dud.

At this juncture, a strong dose of political imagination is required for America First nationalists to break out of the ossified strictures of American politics.

José Niño is a Hispanic dissident who is well aware of the realities of race from his experience living throughout Latin America and in the States.

As a native of lands conquered by brave Spaniards but later subverted by centuries of multiracial trickery and despotic governance, José offers clear warnings to Americans about the perils of multiracialism.

His Substack is at: https://josbcf.substack.com/. Definitely worth supporting.

Saint Lorne

/1 Comment/in /by

Prominent on the front page of the February 14th New York Times is a feature story—“14 MIN READ” it said (most articles are two to six minutes), nine pictures, billed as “The Great Read”– by Times’ opinion columnist Maureen Dowd called “Live From New York, It’s Lorne Michaels: The man who made ‘Saturday Night Live’ reflects on its legacy.”

As many people know, Lorne Michaels has been the producer of NBC’s popular once-a-week late-night sketch comedy and contemporary music show from its beginning in 1975 through all but five years of its remarkable 50-year run.  By the way, I watched the first show in ‘75, hosted by comedian George Carlin, my interest piqued because my nephew’s roommate at Harvard, Alan Franken—we didn’t know him as Al—had gotten a job writing on the show.

Lorne Michaels in 1979.

Lorne Michaels now.

These quotes give the flavor of the Dowd piece.  Needless to say, she holds her subject in very high regard:

At 80, Michaels is a unique, towering figure who has shaped comedy for half a century, turning the Art Deco tower at 30 Rockefeller Plaza into a portal for comedy stars on prime-time TV, in the movies, and on late-night shows.  It’s hard to think of someone in comedy who hasn’t been touched by Michaels’s magic wand.

“Without any hyperbole here, I honestly think that Lorne is the most important and influential person in the history of television, including Johnny Carson and Ed Sullivan,” said Ted Sarandos, the Netflix chief executive, who is a comedy buff and loves to catch “S.N.L shows in person.

Since the 50th season premiered last fall, the anniversary of “S.N.L.,” one of a fragmented America’s few remaining communal cultural events, has inspired a steady stream of tributes to the show and its creator.  There was a Jason Reitman origin-story movie called “Saturday Night,” as well as hundreds of feature stories and listicles in the press.  Last month there was a four-part docuseries on the show and another documentary on just the music.  Friday night brings an “S.N.L” concert at Radio City Music Hall, livestreaming on Peacock.  A 600-plus page biography of Michaels titled “Lorne” by Susan Morrison, an editor at The New Yorker, comes out next week.  It all culminates on Sunday with a live three-hour prime-time special looking back on “S.N.L.” and its singular legacy.

And so on.

By the end of the “14 min. read,” I agreed with Maureen Dowd that Lorne Michael Lipowitz (birth name), Canadian, came to the U.S. at 23, sure has done well by himself since he got here.

At the end of the article was a comments section.

The Times needs your voice. We welcome your on-topic commentary, criticism and expertise.  Comments are moderated for civility.

I’m not as big a fan of Lorne Michaels as Ms. Dowd is, so I thought to balance things off I’d offer a comment that is a little critical of his contribution to the world and sent this in:

As I thought about SNL prompted by the article and read through the list of Lorne Michaels’ outside productions—Jimmy Fallon’s “Tonight Show,” Seth Meyers’ “Late Night,” “30 Rock,” “Mean Girls,” “Wayne’s World,” “Tommy Boy,” “Portlandia,” and “Kenan”—the terms “successful mass entertainment” and “liberal sell” came to mind but “quality” and “cultural uplift” didn’t.

The Times, these days a journal of establishment-left opinion, printed the comment; I was wondering if it would.  A total of 132 comments including mine, though mine didn’t make a splash at all, at least judging by reader replies.  My comment got just two favorable replies.  A scant few of the 132 commenters were down there in number with me.  This one got 122 favorable replies:

Lorne was born and raised and educated in our great city of Toronto in the great independent country of Canada.  Home also of the global icon Drake. His quiet confidence and sublime sense of humour makes the world laugh.  For fifty years he has made us laugh and gotten us through some tough times. Think 9/11. Hopefully he will help us laugh our way through the Trump reign and beyond. Thank you, Mr. Michaels.

and this one got 127:

I enjoy the show from time to time, but I will never forgive them for allowing Trump and Musk to host, thereby giving them a platform to make them seem normal and not like the sociopaths they actually are. A stained legacy to be sure.

I guess my type doesn’t go over big with Times readers, which is their right. At least I got my comment out there. Now I’m wondering who my two favorable repliers were.

The Trump tide hits Ireland

/in /by

Two refugee charities are about to collapse after USAID funding cut, according to internet rumour. Jin O’Callaghan, our new Justice Minister, is talking deportations and urging fake refugees “Don’t come here!” US companies in Ireland are hauling down their Pride flags. Top Irish journalists are signaling they are prepared to bend the knee to the new reality of Emperor Trump, mass deportations and Trad Wives.

The MSM is still running 80% with Crazy Nazi Trump storylines. But they are allowing 20% Messiah Trump storylines. The problem they have is that lots of what Trump and RFK Jr. say is popular, often majority opinion. Refugees are polling 80% disapproval and the takeup for the latest vaccines is very low. It’s open season on transpeople. Legendary screenwriter Graham Linehan is boasting — nervously — that he is going to the States to work with some Jewish guy on a top secret TV series making fun of LGBTQI people and other minorities. If Graham does not have a fatal accident and the series does get made, it will no doubt be very funny. They are keeping it secret until the last minute, to avoid protests and pressure. (His book Tough Crowd details his tangle with crazy trans activists).

Bad Trump storylines: Lawfare!

We’ll stop him with a thousand injunctions.
Congress will block him.
Decent Republicans won’t stand for this.
Hahaha! He’s hurting his own base by making them pay more for Chinese tech.
He’s a bluffer. Those deals with Mexico and Canada were already on the table. And anyway, the deals will make no difference. He’s a fascist!. Elon’s salute is used as proof, though some journos are ready to follow the ADL and Netanyahu and defend Elon’s heartfelt gesture.

He signed the anti-trans decree while surrounded by blonde little girls. This was labelled propaganda and reminded some sensitive metrosexual journos of Germany in the 1930s. He’s in the pocket of the Tech Bros, who are evil, power-crazy weirdos who want to take over the world and control every move we make.
He’s in the pocket of the Zionists.

The only groups actually mentioned as suffering from Trump are:

  1. Hundreds of millions of foreigners who will now have to pay for their own ”lifesaving” AIDS medication. Apparently Uncle Sam was paying for it till now!
  2. About 80 US trans women will no longer be able to compete in their sports. For some reason there are no sob stories about people being deported from the US.

Trump the Messiah storylines: The Israelis have reduced the massacres in Gaza since he came in. At least for now, he has stopped the war. … And he might stop the war in Ukraine. Maybe.

“He is doing what he said he would do.” In utter contrast to most politicians.

Trump is deal maker. What kind of deal can we offer him? Michael Martin is already saying we will buy lots of fracked gas from the US, as a way to equalise the trade balance. And slow down the passage of the Occupied Territories Bill, so as not to upset Trump’s Jewish backers.

Some female and homosexual journos seem to be in a bit of a tizzy, when talking abouit Trump. Direct quotes:

Your head will be spinning…
I feel so weak…
Have they been affected by the increased levels of testosterone wafting across the Atlantic?

Brendan O’Connor is one of the top paid stars of Irish journalism. On his RTÉ radio this weekend, he signalled that he is prepared to bend the knee and abandon his GloboHomo worldview. While introducing a piece about RFK Jr., he used a joking insult about him. But the insult was so mild, that it was effectively praise. The menu of insults Irish MSM has for RFK Jr. includes: predator, junkie, cruel, thief, liar, killer layabout, unqualified and even Zionist.

But the insult Brendan used about him was: He enjoys raw milk. Raw milk is hard to get in the shops. But it has a good reputation for taste and quality amongst young and old, both in the city and the country. Brendan did not insult him by saying he likes raw milk: he praised him. His guest is an enthusiastic young Ciaran O”Connor, from the notorious British-linked Institute for Strategic Dialogue. Ciaran actually sniggers as he mentions “child sex trafficking” theories. (An unfortunate moment to snigger. They say nothing shows a man’s character more clearly than what he finds amusing.) Ciaran notes with concern that many more women believe in conspiracy theories these days. Has the feminist network backfired on its creators? They mention the Trad Wife phenomenon, and Brendan is very careful not to insult them: “They believe there is empowerment there.”

Then Brendan puts the devastating question to his guest: “Does this mean that this kind of conspiratoriality will now become mainstream?” When asking the question, Brendan’s voice is relaxed, amused. He is purring like the cat that got the cream. If, and only if, it becomes mainstream to deport millions of darkies, bring back trad wives and make raw milk compulsory, then Brendan is clearly on board. Brendan concludes with advice for normies on how to deal with their friends and relations who have gone down the rabbit hole.“Maintain some communications on neutral subjects. Don’t keep attacking their reality all the time.”

Sounds like surrender…

Christian Nationalism vs Global Jesus: Projects of Peoplehood from Biblical Israel to the Collapse of British Patriotism

/5 Comments/in , /by


Arktos Media, 2025

 

Preface

This book sheds much-needed light on contemporary controversies surrounding the seemingly oxymoronic phenomenon of “Christian nationalism,” past, present, and future, as problem and as solution.

Part One explores the ostensibly biblical foundations of Christian nationalism, the first-century Jesus movement, and the early Christian church in Greco-Roman antiquity.  Part Two examines the extent to which the rise and fall of early medieval Anglo-Saxon Christendom was influenced by the “project of peoplehood” reflected in the Hebrew Bible. In Part Three, the focus shifts to a modern history culminating in the post-Christian collapse of British race patriotism.

Does the contemporary crisis of Anglo-Protestant political theology stem from a failure to recognize in the historical Jesus the mythic model for the miraculous appearance of a Patriot King?  The religious, political, and civil institutions of the Anglosphere now oversee the deliberate degeneration of historic Anglo cultures into mere economic zones, populated by rootless, shifting masses of morally debased monads.

Faithful Anglo-Protestants could spark the reformation of the entire Anglosphere by labouring to bring the sweet dream of a Patriot King down to earth. Anglo-American evangelical Protestants are, therefore, a primary target for this book’s message. The spiritual reformation of the Anglosphere is a matter of geopolitical theology.  Anglo-American Protestants need to understand themselves as a people standing outside and apart from the state apparatus of the global American empire. In other words, they must mentally nullify the 1776 American Declaration of Independence, embracing instead an ancestral British race patriotism, in solidarity with their co-ethnics in the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand still owing allegiance to the Crown.

I was born a British subject before the creation of Australian or Canadian citizenship, at a time when Anglo-Saxons still counted as one of Canada’s two “founding races.”  My intellectual development has been much influenced by what historian C.P. Champion describes as The Strange Demise of British Canada.  This theme figured largely in my earlier work.

Accordingly, this book was written from an Anglo-Identitarian perspective.  My hope is that a pan-British race patriotism can be rekindled by a reformed, neo-Angelcynn (Old English for “kin of the Angles”) church.  Such a reformation would provide a desperately needed theopolitical alternative to the hegemonic, universalist model of creedal Christianity. Nowadays, even American Christian nationalism routinely invokes the deracinated, disembodied Lordship of global Jesus as its heavenly warrant.

 

For centuries, Anglo-Protestant churches have been famous for sterile struggles between doctrinal orthodoxy and damnable heresy.  Nowadays, however, mainline Anglo-Protestantism has become indistinguishable from the revolutionary humanism driving the globalist regimes misgoverning the Anglosphere.

From its origins in Greco-Roman antiquity, Christianity was beset by a persistent tension between universalism and particularism.  This was manifested first in an opposition between the neo-platonic image of a cosmic Christ who died on the Cross to atone for the sins of all mankind and the Jewish origins story of a national Messiah come to save “the lost sheep of Israel.”

The deeply rooted pull of particularistic ethnic identities was not easy to escape.  Even the early Christian churches of the ancient Mediterranean world found it difficult to resist the impulse to identify themselves as a particular “third race,” neither Greek nor Jew.

Even so, the orthodox Augustinian worldview eventually achieved doctrinal hegemony.  This dualistic vision posited the existence of an eternal City of God, above and beyond the temporal world inhabited by the mortal City of Man.  That other-worldly cosmology met serious resistance once Christian missionaries encountered the stubborn ethnic particularism of the Germanic tribes in northwestern Europe.

There, the world-rejecting orthodoxy of creedal Christianity was often replaced by orthopraxy (i.e., the adoption of Christian rituals and practices by pagan converts).  Roman Catholic theology’s other-worldly doctrines were a tough sell among Germans and Anglo-Saxons.  By and large, they accepted their world as it was, valuing the warrior virtues of heroism far above Christian humility.

Fast forward to our own postwar world.  Following the crushing defeat of German ethnonationalism in 1945, the global Jesus of Anglo-Protestant theology achieved virtually uncontested hegemony.  Today, almost all mainstream Anglo-Protestants reject even the mildest manifestations of ethnic particularism as tantamount to racism.  Indeed, even the advocacy of “Christian nationalism” is denounced regularly from the pulpits of mainline Anglo-Protestant churches in the United States.

 

One might imagine that the established Church of England would accept Christian nationalism as a matter of course.  But the non-negotiable commitment of the English church to global Anglicanism makes that impossible.  As for the Anglican leadership in the former British dominions such as Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, they, too, want nothing more than to escape from their traditional but deplorable “Anglo-Saxon captivity.”

 

Avowed Christian nationalists in the USA are themselves held hostage by global Jesus.  Christian nationalism is bound to affirm that the telos of human history will be realized only when the primary allegiance of all nations is to King Jesus.

Still, it remains to be seen how a distinctively white Anglo-Saxon Protestant ethnoreligious identity can be squared with the ahistorical, universalist reign of Lord Jesus.  Even Stephen Wolfe, the most prominent American Christian nationalist, downplays, when not outright denying, the intractably biocultural dimension of Anglo-Saxon identity.  He has suggested, for example, that even black men such as Booker T. Washington and Justice Clarence Thomas (who happens to be a devout Catholic) have been assimilated into the Anglo-Protestant ethnonation.

By contrast, my thesis is that an exclusive ecclesiastical allegiance to a generic cosmic Christ reduces the distinctive character of every earthly ethnoreligious identity to mere adiaphora (i.e., things inessential in the eyes of the church).  The rebirth of Anglo-Protestantism demands an ethnoreligious foundation.

The theological refusal to reflect on the ethnonational identity of the historical Jesus must be recognized as the outdated product of historically Romanised ecclesiastical establishments, Protestant and Catholic alike. My argument, therefore, is that Anglo-Saxon Christianity should be re-Germanized by re-imagining the Angelcynn church of Alfred the Great to fit the needs of our own age.

The primary constituency for such a re-Germanized Christian nationalism is to be found among Anglo-Protestants.  Unfortunately, the realized biblical eschatology of the historical Jesus sent to save the “lost sheep” of biblical Israel has been suppressed in most Anglo-Protestant churches. The still-future Second Coming of global Jesus remains the bedrock presupposition of Anglo-Protestant theology, however well-grounded a “full preterist” interpretation of the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in AD 70  may be in biblical exegesis or historical reality.

This book provides persuasive evidence that the Hebrew Bible (most likely created between the fifth and second centuries BC) produced a poignant and powerful national narrative.  Conceived by Judean scribes as a pedagogic tool, that biblical narrative inspired the “project of peoplehood” presupposed by the Jesus movement of the first century AD.

 

Jesus was received by many of his co-ethnics as the Jewish Messiah.  He also became the Hellenic Christ.  Jesus Christ was the King of Israel for Jews such as Paul and later of the “third race” of early Christians.

That was then; this is now.

Anglo-Protestants desperately need to recover earlier folkish variants of the Christian tradition.  I suggest that the focus of Anglo-Protestantism needs to be shifted away from its historic preoccupation with personal salvation in the world to come.  Anglos need a sense of rootedness in networks of ethnoreligious communities in which shared ancestry matters as much if not more than doctrinal purity.

Colonial and antebellum New England provided many useful examples of churches as godly little republics as well as clear warnings pointing to the dangers of doctrinaire religion.  Jewish synagogues and Islamic mosques offer countless other non-Christian examples of ethnoreligious communities far more productive of in-group solidarity (aka social capital).

An Anglo ethno-religion is both the institutional precondition and moral foundation for the creation of socially cohesive communities.  Anglo-Protestant churches must become the ethnoreligious heart of breakaway parallel societies devoted to producing healthy, happy, and morally upright families together with British-descended counter-elites set in opposition to the irresponsible corporate plutocracy now misgoverning the Anglosphere.

It may be that Anglo-Protestants will someday receive as King a Christ of their own.  But he is unlikely to return as a 5’5” Jewish man whose name is Jesus.  That fact need not preclude the miraculous appearance of our own Patriot King, were he to become incarnate in Australia and the other British dominions.

In short, my book offers a sympathetic but penetrating critique of the hitherto unchallenged hegemony of global Jesus within the Anglo-Protestant epicentre of the emergent Christian nationalist movement.  My hope is to persuade Christian nationalists that their predominantly Anglo-Protestant movement, like the first-century Jesus movement, can and should embrace, explicitly, its historic, ethnoreligious character outside and apart from the state.

At the same time, a Christian nationalism grounded in orthopraxis rather than strait-laced orthodoxy may attract secular, culturally Christian traditionalists.  While maintaining their resistance to unconditional belief in the established Christian creeds and confessions, such people are more likely to be receptive to a “modernized” folk religion in which the church serves, first and foremost, as a teacher of morality.

In effect, therefore, the book advocates a return to the nineteenth century Broad Church movement in the Church of England pioneered by men such as Sir John Robert Seeley.  Younger Anglo-Protestants in particular, along with their agnostic contemporaries, are having their future stolen from them by a corporatist regime destroying every institution that could provide access to stable, prosperous, middle-class family lives of purpose and meaning.

Their rising discontent could find its first significant outlet in an Anglo-Identitarian Christian movement challenging those who currently manage and control evangelical Protestantism in the USA: the power centre that Christian nationalists call “Big Eva”. This book aims to provide such an oppositional movement with intellectual ammunition as well as insight into the weaknesses of a Christian nationalism that places the mythology of global Jesus over loyalty to co-ethnics. 

Annotated Table of Contents

Introduction

Our Own Worst Enemy? Anglo-Protestant Theology, British Race Patriotism, and the European Civil War

In the nineteenth century British/Anglo-Saxon race patriotism was a commonplace feature of Anglo-Protestant culture.  We begin by examining why and how the twentieth century “European civil war” led contemporary Anglo-Protestant churches to dismiss the English ancestry and white British ethnicity of most of their communicants as a merely implicit and contingent (if not downright unmentionable) circumstance of no theological significance.

 Part One

Creedal Christianity: Theological Origins of the Present Crisis

  1. Sweet Dreams of Christian Nationalism (But What About the Protestant Deformation, Globalist Churches, and Jewish Political Theology?)

This review essay discusses The Case for Christian Nationalism (Canon Press,    2022) by Stephen Wolfe.  The author identifies real problems with post-Christian societies.  One wonders, however, why Wolfe takes such pains to deny that he is a “kinist,” much less a “racist.”  Indeed, he seems to find it extraordinarily difficult to distinguish between “Christian nations” and “Christian states.”

  1. Religion, Race, and Ethnicity in Greco-Roman Antiquity: New Perspectives on the Lordship of Jesus, Judaism, and the “Truthiness” of Christianity

We take a deeper, historical dive into the fundamental presuppositions of Wolfe’s Christian nationalism.  He asserts that “Jesus is Lord” and “Christianity is the true religion.”  In what sense, are those statements “true”?  Were Jesus and Paul really the founders of a new religion?  Was the “resurrection” of Jesus Christ a unique historical event or a mimetic manifestation of a common Greco-Roman literary     trope?

  1. Metanarrative Collapse: Has the Christian Cosmology Crafted by Augustine of Hippo Stood the Test of Time?

Augustine of Hippo rewrote a biblical narrative originally conceived as a Hebrew ethnonational epic.  This chapter examines how Augustine’s Hellenistic hermeneutic laid the cosmological foundation for Western Christendom. We also    consider the efforts of contemporary, neo-Augustinian Radical Orthodoxy to restore that crumbling edifice.

  1. Global Jesus versus National Jesus: The Political Hermeneutics of Resurrection

The ongoing quest for the “true” meaning of Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection cannot be separated from the central political conflict of our time: globalism versus nationalism.  Were Jesus and Paul wrong in their expectation that the “resurrection        of the body” would occur in the lifetime of their followers, at the “end of the age”?  How did they conceive the nature of that resurrected “body”?  Was it to appear as the holy spirit breathing life into the dry bones of Old Testament Israel, as lamented in Ezekiel 37:4-7?  Or did they envisage individual, physical (“glorified”?) bodies emerging from their graves in the far distant future everywhere in the world? 

Part Two

Did Anglo-Saxon Christendom Replicate the “Project of Peoplehood” Posited by the Hebrew Bible?

  1. Adam and Eve in Torah: The Lost World of Covenantal Ethnotheology

Despite their differences modern biblical literalists and scholarly literary critics alike abstract Adam and Eve from their place in the particularistic ethnotheology of national Israel according to the flesh.  Both camps view Adam and Eve, whether biologically or mythically, literally or figuratively, as ancestors or representatives of Everyman and Everywoman.  A better interpretation of Genesis 1-3 conceives the pair as characters in the foundation myth of Old Covenant Israel

  1. Exodus 34: Covenantal Ethnotheology and the (Re)Birth of the First Holy Nation

In Exodus 34 God enters into the everyday life of Israel according to the flesh via the channel of grace embodied in Mosaic authority.  Having received the Mosaic law, national Israel is thereby empowered to serve as the spiritual womb of the living God, the one to come in an as-yet far-distant future.  The modern functionalist interpretation of Exodus 34 holds that covenantal ethnotheology merely reflects the primitive, particularistic, and narrowly ethnocentric character of ancient Israelite religion.  This approach downplays the problem in practical theology posed by the story: the national religion lacked a secure cultic foundation.  This has been no less a problem for early medieval Angelcynns and contemporary Anglo-Protestants.  How can we preserve a Christian nation if the Presence of the Lord is no longer with us?

 

  1. Making Angelcynns: How Alfred the Great Responded to the Viking Invasion

This essay highlights the theopolitical significance of the Anglo-Saxon king, Alfred the Great.  His reign (871-899) brought to fruition the project to establish an Anglo-Saxon Christendom begun by the Venerable Bede in the eighth century. The British-descended peoples of the modern Anglosphere would do well to reclaim Alfred’s legacy.

  1. Sanctifying the Norman Yoke: William the Conqueror, the Angelcynn Church, and the Papal Revolution

The Norman Conquest brought Anglo-Saxon Christendom to an end.  William the Conqueror was a fellow traveller of the Papal Revolution of the late eleventh         century. Earth-hugging Saxon churches gave way to the spires of Gothic cathedrals pointing to an empty sky. The “Romanization” of Alfred’s Angelcynn church signalled an Age of Disincarnation, thus splitting the secular from the spiritual realm. 

  1. A Choice Not an Echo: Biblical Israel as Mythic Model for Anglo-Saxon Christendom

It seems that the Old English church of the Anglo-Saxon era reflected what scholars describe as “the Germanization of early medieval Christianity.”  It has also been said that the Hebrew Bible was the product of a “project of peoplehood.”  This chapter considers whether the Hebrew Bible served as a model for the creation of the Anglo-Saxon Christendom. 

Part Three

Beyond Creedal Christianity: Neo-Angelcynn Political Theology versus Globalist Churches and the Transnational Corporate State

  1. Who are We Now? Restoring the Ethnoreligious Dimensions of WASP Identity throughout the Anglosphere

The world-rejecting cosmology of the church in the Mediterranean world of the late Roman Empire stood in opposition to the world-accepting character of Germanic Christianity.  Nevertheless, both traditions presupposed the universal reign of Lord Jesus.  Christian nationalism therefore remains, for us, something of an oxymoron.  Accordingly, in the Anglosphere at least, the postmodern restoration of Christian nationhood should be inspired by a neo-Angelcynn theopolitics best organized around four “orienting concepts”: process theism, preterism, kinism, and royalism. 

  1. Was Early New South Wales (1788-1850) a “Christian Community”?

Anglo-Protestant churches in England (both the established Church of England and its dissenting offshoots) aimed to perpetuate themselves by reinforcing cultural ties between the mother country and the British settler colonies in Australia and elsewhere.  Unfortunately, those cultural ties were not always conducive to the creation of a Christian community, either “at home” or in early New South Wales.

 

  1. The White Australia Policy in Retrospect: Racism or Realism?

The White Australia Policy was inaugurated in 1901 at the high-water mark of    British race patriotism. This review essay discusses two books, one on the adoption of the WAP, the other on its repeal.  Both works view the policy from the    perspective of a racial egalitarianism that flies in the face of the intractable reality of racial differences presupposed by the founding fathers of Federation in Australia.

  1. Puritans in Babylon: The Impact of Global Christianity on Sydney Anglicans

In the brave new world of “global Christianity,” the largest Christian communities are now to be found in the overwhelmingly non-white realm of the so-called “global south.”  This chapter deals with the response of the evangelical, low-church Anglican diocese of Sydney to the movements that demand conformity to the manifold manifestations of the progressive Cult of the Other.

  1. Anglo-Republicanism and the Rebirth of British History: Why Virtuous WASPs Must Challenge the Corrupt Globalist Plutocracy Misgoverning the Anglosphere

The rise of a globalist system, presided over by the managerial elites of                 transnational corporate capitalism, has transformed the British-descended citizenry        of once-proudly “Anglo-Saxon countries” into random collections of stateless people.  This chapter explores the relevance of the Anglo-American republican tradition to a neo-Angelcynn reformation of civil society, outside and apart from     the state, throughout the Anglosphere

  1. Monarchs and Miracles: Australia’s Need for a Patriot King

The eighteenth-century Country Party politician, Viscount Bolingbroke, maintained that only the influence of a Patriot King (“the most uncommon of all phenomena in the physical or moral world”) could draw despotic governments and   their corrupted peoples back to the original principles of liberty that had their origins in the ancient British constitution.  The issue here is whether (and how) Bolingbroke’s idea of a Patriot King can be transposed into our own age of woke capital and mass migration to rescue stateless Anglos, now stranded in the (residually) British dominions of the Crown throughout the Anglosphere.

Covenant Theology and God’s Chosen

/4 Comments/in , /by

Introduction

Within the alt-right community there is a continual call to advocate traditional, Northern European paganism. Inherent in both the published and online literature is the view that the fall of Europe can be traced to the abandonment of its roots in the Norse religion and that Christianity looted paganism of its intellectual treasures.[1] Though alt-right Christians like me can be found, there seems to be a rising consensus in the alt-right that is critical of Christianity. This is understandable since the New Testament is the prophetic fulfillment of Judaism, which has a history of plundering nations and, especially since the medieval era, has become a morally debased religion practiced by a generally evil people. In this brief article, I hope to reinvigorate interest in the Christian story among the alt-right by providing a theological consideration for why God chose the evillest race in history to be his people in the Old Testament. I’ll begin by proffering covenant theology as the historic alternative to dispensationalism (and its Zionism), as the interpretive lens through which we should understand the biblical meta-narrative. I’ll conclude by examining how the incarnation of Christ and God’s pattern of salvific election can better help us understand the character of God and his choice of the Jewish people in the Old Testament.

Abrahamic Blessing and Covenant Theology

The Jews have wreaked havoc on Western civilization. This is one of the first realizations one has when she starts to dive into alt-right literature. Their mode of operation has sometimes been described as parasitic, as they attach themselves to a host nation and destroy that nation from the inside. Yet, many Christians in America believe that the Jews are God’s special and chosen people. Guided by a theology called dispensationalism, they eagerly defend the Jewish people in all internal and foreign affairs: they defend their presence in any nation, they defend the state of Israel and their cause in any conflict, they defend U.S. foreign aid (both financial and military) to Israel, and they support any political policy that lifts up the Jewish people, even to the detriment of another people. Writes one Christian Zionist, “With the world rightly united against the use of nuclear weapons, let us empower Israel—and stand ready ourselves—so that Iran’s regime grasps a simple truth: We will not hesitate to defend ourselves or our allies. True peace hinges on strength, and we must exhibit both in earnest, today and always. And just as strength is not a precursor to war, neither does bombing Iran start a never-ending conflict; in fact, it stops the war that started the day the Islamic Republic was born.”[2]

What could drive a Christian to speak so casually about bombing another nation? It all starts with the covenant promise that God made to Israel. In Genesis 12, God says to Israel’s patriarch, Abraham, “I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you” (2–3). Evangelicals receive this verse as a mandate to support God’s Abrahamic people in the form of modern Israel to whatever violent end and at whatever financial or human cost. However, if the reader of Scripture progresses, he’ll find that the nature of this covenant is framed in conditional terms. Leviticus 26:3-4 uses the if/then grammatical structure of a subjunctive conditional: “If you walk in my statutes and keep my commandments so as to carry them out, then I shall give you rains in their season, so that the land will yield its produce, and the trees of the field will bear their fruit.”

But Israel did not keep their end of the covenant, and God, in his loving patience, decided to give them chance after chance, renewing their covenant at various points in Scripture. In the book of Joshua, He reaffirms His covenant with Israel and reiterates His warning against disobedience. Joshua says on behalf of Yahweh, “If you abandon the Lord and worship foreign gods, He will turn against you, harm you, and completely destroy you, after He has been good to you” (24:20).

Within the Abrahamic covenant then, there is a two-fold promise: The unconditional promise that through Abraham all nations will be blessed. This is an allusion to the coming of the Messiah whose line will persist through the Jewish people no matter what. Yet there is the conditional promise of general blessings; the material blessings of rain for the harvest, protection from enemies, and God’s provision of Holy Spirit-led guidance and sense of fatherhood over the nation of Israel as his children.[3] In other words, God promised to keep his Messianic promise of blessing to the Jews and that promise was kept through Christ. When Christ the Messiah did finally come, he came through the Jewish people. The gospels of Matthew and Luke even provide a genealogy of Jesus with Matthew going back to Abraham and Luke going all the way back to Adam.

But the Jews have rejected the Messiah. Acts 4:11 says, “Jesus is ‘the stone you builders rejected, which has become the cornerstone.’” So, God sent his gospel to the Gentiles through the Apostle Paul and engrafted them into the salvific tree of Israel. The promises that were meant for Israel have now been transferred to the Church. Whoever trusts in Christ for salvation becomes a citizen in God’s chosen spiritual nation — the Church. Circumcision, which in the OT was the sign and seal of the covenant that God made with his people to make them his own has been replaced by baptism. It serves the same purpose as circumcision as it is understood as setting someone apart from the world and bringing them into the covenant family of God’s people which is now the Church, not Israel.

Theologians have long called this observation supersessionism, which is directly informed by covenant theology. Covenant theology is a helpful interpretive guide to the meta narrative of the Bible. The Bible’s story unfolds in “chapters” of covenants. God made a covenant with Noah not to destroy the natural world even though he knew sin would continue to spread among it. He gave Noah the sign of the covenant in the form of a rainbow. He made a covenant with Abraham to bless his offspring materially and spiritually if his people would not follow other gods. The sign and seal of this Abrahamic covenant is circumcision, which is seen as a ceremonial act of cleansing and purification; a way to set the Israelites apart from her neighboring nations. He made a covenant with David that his kingship would be eternal. The sign and seal of this covenant was the throne, on which Christ now sits at the right hand of God the Father. In the New Testament, God made a covenant to anyone through Jesus Christ to be their God, if they abandon their false gods and idols and trust in Him through Christ alone.

The sign and seal of this new covenant is baptism. This is why Christians baptize their babies — It replaces circumcision as the ceremonial rite of induction into God’s covenant community. In this way, covenant theology makes a common-sense observation of the chronology of biblical salvific history. Zionist disagree with this way of viewing the whole Bible, and instead insist the Bible’s narrative unfolds in ages called dispensations. They believe that there are several ages in the salvific story and that we are currently in the “church age.” According to dispensationalists, there is a final coming age of Zion, where Christ will rule from Jerusalem for a thousand years. This theology gives Israel a sort of sacred status as the future center of God’s kingdom. Zionists angrily denounce covenant theology and its subsequent supersessionsim as “replacement theology”[4], because it replaces the idea of the chosenness of Israel with the chosenness of the Church.

It is confusing that Christian Zionists, while believing along with covenant minded Christians that salvation is found only in Christ, could simultaneously believe that the people who have whole heartedly rejected Christ are his chosen people. If they believe on the one hand that people who reject Christ, including Jews, spend eternity in hell, how could they on the other hand believe that an entire race of people who have rejected the only means of salvific blessings could be God’s chosen? If anything, the very opposite is true. St Paul likens Israel to Pharaoh whose heart was hardened by God before the Exodus from Egypt. It’s quite possible that Israel is under a special spiritual curse, as they continue to reject their Messiah who came through their own faith.

A more comprehensive explication of covenant theology than provided here is needed to fully understand its interpretive implication. However, it should suffice to say for now that dispensationalism is rather new in the history of biblical interpretation. The historic tradition of the church is also an important epistemological factor in discerning the Word of God in Sacred Scripture. The doctrine of the Church is passed on from one generation to the next, preserving the sacra doctrina of the apostles. This is what the Church means in the Apostles Creed when we say, “I believe in the Holy Catholic Church.” As St Vincent of Lerins said, “All possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has always been believed, everywhere, always, by all.”[5] Dispensationalism is as new as the nineteenth century. It does not mean that we don’t see doctrinal developments based on already-evolving truths come in more recent times. But it does mean that the church cannot accept an entire paradigm shift in interpretation. Covenant theology is the historic (traditionally) and commonsense (biblically and logically) method for understanding the whole of God’s Word. So, who are God’s people? The Church. Those who commits themselves to Christ, whether Jew or Gentile, belong to God and are a part of his chosen covenant family called the church. There is no room in the biblical meta-narrative for viewing the modern state of Israel or any ethnic group of people for that matter as God’s chosen people. God made a new covenant in Christ. The old covenant has been fulfilled in him and comes with new terms and conditions. Simply being Jewish does not suffice. As St. Paul writes in Romans 9:8, “In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.” That promise is fulfilled in Christ.

Why the Jews?

However, this still does not answer why God chose Israel from the many peoples of the world to covenant with in the Old Testament. Here is the answer: God’s loving character and desire to save all people, from the worst of all nations and peoples to the best. Would God be God if He only chose the best of humanity? If He chose for Himself a people whom He, in his divine foreknowledge, knew would be the most obedient of all peoples, what kind of hope would that give to the imprisoned, the poor, and all of us who have sinned egregiously against the Lord (and that’s everyone)? What hope would lesser races have, that they too may be forgiven and saved? God chose the Jews, the very worst of humanity, and became one of them through Jesus Christ, that all of humanity, from the worst of us to the best of us might be saved. By taking on Jewish flesh in the incarnation of Christ, he made possible the redemption of those races and peoples even in the very pits of humanity, reconciling anyone who trusts in him to the Father. Referring to the Jews, God tells Moses in Exodus 32:9, “I have seen this people, and behold, it is a stiff-necked people.” But in Christ, God became the lowest form of human, a Jew, so that any one of us may attain salvation in Him and through Him alone. God has made a habit of choosing the worst of us. It is why he chose Paul, a persecutor of Christians to carry the gospel to the gentiles. It is why God chose Peter who denied Christ when asked if he knew him. It is why God chose James though he doubted Christ even while seeing him arisen. God would not be God if only the best had a chance at salvation. He loves the worst of us. But he requires that we repent of our sins and trust in Christ alone.

Conclusion

            Covenant theology is, therefore, the appropriate hermeneutic with which we should approach the biblical narrative. Its merits are easily observed in Scripture. It is believed and practiced in Roman Catholicism, Classical Protestantism, and Eastern Orthodoxy, and has been the prevailing method of biblical interpretation for the history of the church. The American public peers into Christianity and observes the rather loud dispensational voices commenting on current events and therefore believes that the church catholic (the whole church) thinks this way. Christianity, therefore, to the alt-right might seem off putting, given its claims concerning Israel. But it’s important to know that most of the church affirms a more reasonable interpretive method, one that severs the destiny of Israel from the church. It is my hope that if the alt-right understands that dispensationalism/Zionism is actually a minority view in the grand scheme of church history, and isn’t a view taken seriously by most theologians, perhaps they’ll give Christianity another look.

Nick Craig has a B.Sc. Religion, Liberty University and an M.A. Theological Studies, Houston Christian University

Bibliography

Elwell, Walter A, ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1984.

Hedrick, Gary. “Replacement Theology: Its Origins, Teachings and Errors .” Shema, October 5, 2012. https://shema.com/replacement-theology-its-origins-147/.

Parker, Sandra Hagee. “Peace Through Strength When It Comes To Supporting Israel and Confronting Iran.” Jewish News Syndicate, February 5, 2025. https://www.jns.org/peace-through-strength-when-it-comes-to-supporting-israel-and-confronting-iran/.

Rea, Robert F. Why Church History Matters: An Invitation to Live and Learn From the Past. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2014.

Svarte, Askr. Polemos: The Dawn of Pagan Traditionalism. Moscow, Russian Federation: Prav, 2020.

[1] Askr Svarte, Polemos: The Dawn of Pagan Traditionalism (Moscow, Russian Federation: Prav, 2020), Kindle location 221.

[2] Sandra Hagee Parker, “Peace Through Strength When It Comes To Supporting Israel and Confronting Iran,” Jewish News Syndicate, February 5, 2025, https://www.jns.org/peace-through-strength-when-it-comes-to-supporting-israel-and-confronting-iran/.

[3] Walter A Elwell, ed., Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1984), 277.

[4] Gary Hedrick, “Replacement Theology: Its Origins, Teachings and Errors ,” Shema, October 5, 2012, https://shema.com/replacement-theology-its-origins-147/.

[5] Robert F Rea, Why Church History Matters: An Invitation to Live and Learn From the Past (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2014), 36.

Freudian slip: psychotherapist speaks too much truth on woke ideology

/2 Comments/in /by

 

The long march through the institutions is almost complete, with no profession untouched by Cultural Marxist subversion. A few brave workers make a stand for the very purpose of their vocation, against such interference.  Police should be policing, teachers should be teaching, midwives should be delivering babies, librarians provide access to books, and therapists conduct therapy. It should be obvious that practitioners, after training, practise their calling.

Not so much nowadays. Midwives attend to ‘pregnant persons’, police do social work, teachers indoctrinate, librarians empty the shelves of books, all for the agenda of transforming society from traditional mores to the revolutionary dogma euphemistically defined as ‘equality, diversity and inclusion’ (EDI). Now it seems that psychotherapists are expected to prioritise identity politics over individualised therapeutic intervention.

Concerned at this wrong turn in her profession, highly skilled and experienced therapist Sue Parker Hall put her hat in the ring for chairperson of the United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy (UKCP). The process has hardly been fair. The organisation’s blandly conformist journal New Psychotherapy has promoted three stances taken by her rival candidate. The UKCP is making clear who they want to win an election that it should be running without favour.

Most troubling for Sue Parker Hall is a letter signed by numerous members of the body, accusing Sue of expressing ‘far-right’ views, conspiracy theories and harmful misinformation.  The petitioners strive to discredit her and ensure that she is not elected. Indeed, the hostility is so intense to suggest that they want to hound her out of the profession.

Four days ago, Parker Hall decided to publicise her fears for psychotherapy and her victimisation in a You Tube video. Stressing the importance of critical thinking, intellectual freedom and ethical integrity, she criticises the political activism that is diverting psychotherapy from its raison d’être. The unjustified attack on her character is corrupting democratic process, yet the UKCP board has remained silent.

The contrast between what psychotherapy should be doing, and what it is doing instead, is stark. This passage in her monologue is worth reciting: –

‘Intersectionality is at odds with the clinical framework because it prioritises group identity over individual experience. It encourages clients to see themselves through the lens of oppression rather than as whole integrated people. It shifts the therapeutic focus to external social forces, which can be disempowering and discourage self-exploration. It also unhelpfully frames relationships as power struggles, fostering division rather than connection, which runs counter to psychotherapy’s aim of healing relational wounds and deepening empathy.’

Imagine being a White heterosexual male on the couch, with a judgmental therapist blaming you not for your own problems but a legacy of social ills caused by your sex and race. Parker Hall comes across as humane but also a therapist who will challenge faulty thinking rather than build that into a model of systematic discrimination. Words like ‘harm’ and ‘safety’ are weaponised by the radical ideologues in a way that deters therapists from confronting the client’s problematic outlook, which may exacerbate their struggle and maintain cycles of distress.

In the comments below the video there is plenty of support and gratitude. But puritanical conformity is prominent, Parker Hall having committed heresy: –

‘What you call ideology I call human rights.’

‘Whenever someone is worried about EDI, I can’t help but think of Trump.’

‘Maybe some people should be deplatformed after all.’

Typically lacking insight is a comment by Robert Downes decrying Parker Hall’s argument against ‘critical social justice theory’. This is ‘not a thing’, he says; ‘nobody identifies themselves as a proponent of such theory or practice.’  This despite reams of ‘research’ and ‘clinical guidance’ on such balderdash. And this being the same chap who declares that Parker Hall is a right-wing extremist. Free speech for me but not for thee….

The open letter opposing Parker Hall, addressed to the board of trustees, has been signed by over a thousand UKCP-accredited psychotherapists. It begins by stating that Parker Hall appeared in a video on the ‘far-right platform’ Rumble, in association with the World Council for Health, claiming that the Covid-19 pandemic was orchestrated by the authorities, using ‘cultic thought reform techniques’ for totalitarian ends.

The letter accuses Parker Hall of being willing to be publicly associated with conspiracy theories based on right-wing propaganda and lies, including Covid-19 denial, claims of vaccine harm, climate change denial and anti-LGBT narratives. Furthermore, she runs a support group for ‘differently aware’ therapists who are concerned about ‘globalism, great reset, world banking system, nanotech, Russia, transgender issues Palestine and satanic child abuse’.

Such views, the letter argues, are ‘in direct conflict with the UKCP’s core values of inclusivity and ensuring that policies are informed by data and evidence.’

These therapists (with the diverse middle-class names of Hannah, Tara, Phoebe, Tiffany, Holly, etc) would surely regard themselves as following the motto to ‘be kind’. Yet they are acting like a lynch mob. And what is the relevance of climate change or global bankers to a therapists’ ability to do her professional role, whether practising with clients or chairing the council? Do any of these therapists know the evidence that would differentiate the contrived climate crisis from a scam? Is it not appropriate for Parker Hall, as a member of society, to discuss matters of political import?

The letter ends, somewhat confusingly, by urging the UKCP ‘to ensure that members have the information they need to vote for a candidate who reflects the values and aims of the UK’.

If I needed psychological help I’d be glad to have Sue Parker Hall facing me. But not many of her professional peers, who are exposing themselves as frenzied puritans more suited to Maoist cultural revolution than person-centred therapy.

Dr. Niall McCrae
Dr Niall McCrae is an officer of the Workers of England Union and until recently a senior lecturer in mental health nursing at King’s College London.
He has written several books, including The Moon and Madness (2011), Echoes from the Corridors (with Peter Nolan, 2016), Moralitis: a Cultural Virus (with Robert Oulds, 2020) and Green in Tooth and Claw: the Misanthropic Mission of Climate Alarm (2024).
Niall writes regularly for Unity News Network, Conservative Woman, Country Squire and The Light newspaper. 

What Working at a Retirement Home Taught Me About the Elderly and Today’s Healthcare Racket

/5 Comments/in /by

Since retiring a few years back, I’ve kept myself busy by working as a night attendant for a large retirement facility in the mid-West. The two main advantages of the job are that I get to meet some wonderful people as well as walk about seven miles each night which helps to keep me in generally good shape. Hearing the life stories of folks who have been on earth for the past eighty or ninety years and the insight they’ve learned has, at times, been fascinating and I’ve enjoyed it immensely.

Over the past few years, however, I’ve discovered many truths about our corrupt and broken Heathcare system, including just how badly uninformed enormous numbers of elderly people are about nutrition and the medical industrial complex that has largely taken over their lives.

Thanks for reading Ambrose Kane ! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

The following are my observations and opinions based on numerous conversations with elderly residents. I don’t claim to be novel or innovative in my criticism of the contemporary Healthcare system. Nothing I’ve written here hasn’t also been said or written by someone else in some form. But this doesn’t make it any less true, and I hope some will be encouraged to rethink their opinion of doctors and the corrupt medical system that we’ve been subjected to.

The first thing I’ve learned is just how naively trusting the elderly are of their doctors. They really do view them as their ‘savior,’ almost godlike in a sense. To think their primary care physician may have ulterior motives other than the improvement of their personal health would come as a shock to a good many of them.

This is somewhat understandable, of course, since the doctors might have improved their health or even saved their lives in some instances. There are, indeed, good doctors out there, but even the best ones are caught up in a corrupt medical matrix that far too often places profit above the health of their patients. This is because America’s $4.5 trillion healthcare industry is a business, and their primary motivation is to make large profits for their investors and to raise enormous sums of money to pay staff, employees, maintain tech equipment and facilities.

Having talked to many of the residents, none of them from what I could determine view themselves as being their own health advocates. The notion is completely foreign to almost all of them. They wholly trust their doctors without question. They don’t challenge their physicians even when there are valid reasons for doing so. They don’t seem do any medical research on their ailments, despite there being a plethora of books, internet articles, and social media platforms that might address their particular disease or symptoms. They seem to know nothing about alternative medicine, the benefits of quality supplements, or holistic treatments. They don’t even think in such terms. Again, they completely trust all of what their doctors tell them and place full faith in the medical establishment.

This may be due to the era and culture out of which they have lived for many years, a time in which every institution, including the federal government, was trusted without question. The majority of their lives were spent in a high-trust society which contrasts sharply with our current no-trust society that we live in. Those days, however, are long gone, and there is every reason now to challenge and to question the contemporary medical system that we live under.

Trusting completely in medical doctors might be a good idea if our physicians were infallible, but they’re not. In fact, medical errors, including mistakes in prescriptions, cause a considerable number of deaths each year. Granted, it may not be the third leading cause of death as reported by some publications, but there can be little doubt that much of it is the direct result of human error, wrongful diagnosis, mistakes in pharmaceutical prescriptions, and sheer incompetence.

According to the National Library of Medicine, “Health care is not as safe as it should be. A substantial body of evidence points to medical errors as a leading cause of death and injury. Sizable numbers of Americans are harmed as a result of medical errors. Two studies of large samples of hospital admissions, one in New York using 1984 data and another in Colorado and Utah using 1992 data, found that the proportion of hospital admissions experiencing an adverse event, defined as injuries caused by medical management, were 2.9 and 3.7 percent, respectively. The proportion of adverse events attributable to errors (i.e., preventable adverse events) was 58 percent in New York, and 53 percent in Colorado and Utah. Preventable adverse events are a leading cause of death in the United States. When extrapolated to the over 33.6 million admissions to U.S. hospitals in 1997, the results of these two studies imply that at least 44,000 and perhaps as many as 98,000 Americans die in hospitals each year as a result of medical errors. . . . In terms of lives lost, patient safety is as important an issue as worker safety. Although more than 6,000 Americans die from workplace injuries every year, in 1993 medication errors are estimated to have accounted for about 7,000 deaths. Medication errors account for one out of 131 outpatient deaths and one out of 854 inpatient deaths” (‘To Err is Human: Building a Safer Healthcare System’).

The second thing I’ve learned is that almost every resident is on a plethora of pharmaceutical drugs. One elderly gentleman proudly told me that’s he on fifteen separate medications each day, including four different blood pressure pills! Another woman told me that her doctor prescribed her nineteen separate pills that’s she’s required to take with her breakfast each morning. To many of these elderly folks, swallowing large numbers of pills each day is seen as perfectly normal which is a clear indicator of just how insane things have become in the Healthcare world.

In my opinion, some physicians intentionally load their elderly patients with more medications than they actually need as a way of meeting the prescription quotas required by their hospital. This is another way that big bucks are brought into the system. How about the flu shot? Ever notice how pushy nurses and doctors get or even annoyed when you refuse a flu shot? They take it so personally. I doubt that it’s because they care so much for your health. The real answer probably lies in the loss of revenue that occurs when patients refuse it.

According to a PBS News article,

In the Byzantine world of health care pricing, most people wouldn’t expect that the ubiquitous flu shot could be a prime example of how the system’s lack of transparency can lead to disparate costs. The Affordable Care Act requires health insurers to cover all federally recommended vaccines at no charge to patients, including flu immunizations. Although people with insurance pay nothing when they get their shot, many don’t realize that their insurers foot the bill — and that those companies will recoup their costs eventually. In just one small sample from one insurer, Kaiser Health News found dramatic differences among the costs for its own employees. At a Sacramento, Calif., facility, the insurer paid $85, but just a little more than half that at a clinic in Long Beach. A drugstore in Washington, D.C., was paid $32. The wide discrepancy in what insurers pay for the same flu shot illustrates what’s wrong with America’s health system, said Glenn Melnick, a health economist at the University of Southern California. (‘The Hidden Costs of “Free” Flu Shots,’ by Phil Galewitz, 11/19/2019)

Primary care physicians get angered when they’re accused of being legalized pill pushers, but what else are we to think when so much of what they do each day involves writing endless prescriptions? And to think that most doctors are going to carefully sift through any possible contraindications for the medications they prescribe is laughable. The doctors are too busy, and they have very precise time limits they are allowed for each patient.

Are there exceptions to what I have written here? Of course! But the few exceptions only serve to prove the general rule.

Dr. Uma Pisharody, in a recent article, concedes that this model of care has not been effective for either the patient or the doctors’ captive to it. She has urged her colleagues to move away from this ineffectual and outdated framework:

Infants are now prescribed strong medications for spitting up, equating their regurgitations with adult heartburn and reflux. Older children are being diagnosed with hypertension, ADHD, sleep disorders, anxiety at alarming rates and then suffering the consequences of the side effects of the polypharmacy that we prescribe. Kids are medicated more than ever before. If one drug doesn’t work, we suggest trying another. If a pill fails, we try an injection, and if that fails, we try invasive procedures and surgeries followed by even stronger medications. Let’s face it, most doctors are trained to be pill-pushers. Tell us your symptoms — we will medicate you. We love prescribing medications, which essentially work like applying band-aids to external symptoms because we don’t understand how to prevent, treat, or reverse chronic disease. We simply don’t understand diet and lifestyle intervention. We were never taught this in medical school. (KevinMD.Com., ‘A Call to Action for My Medical Colleagues,’ 5/10/2022).

The doctors, as noted above, largely treat their patients in terms of symptoms only, and do not think in terms of the root cause of their ailments. Thus, modern physicians are locked into a system of treatment as health management or pain management rather than one that actually seeks to cure or end the problem. This works out beautifully for the medical industrial complex because it maintains a steady stream of lifelong patients whose medical complications are forever managed, but which never go away.

This creates enormously staggering profits for the hospitals, and the corporations that own them, including the pharmaceutical companies they are wed to. As the old saying goes, “A patient healed is a customer lost.”

It’s also important to understand the mindset of today’s doctors. There is little doubt that they are intelligent because completing the academic rigors of medical school requires an IQ well above average, at least until DEI took over. Many of them are well-meaning and genuinely want what is best for their patients. However, they tend to also be compliant types which means few of them are going to challenge the system nor rethink what they’ve been taught since medical school. Some of them, as others have noted, are arrogant and unteachable. The entire way that society looks at medical doctors only serves to reinforce the ‘god complex’ of far too many of them.

These same doctors know that if they deviate from mandated protocols regardless of how ineffective they may prove to be, they will be penalized and may lose their medical license as a result. Few physicians, understandably, are willing to fight the medical system and jeopardize their salary, status and medical license. Thus, they are caught up in a system that inevitably burns them out and leaves them disillusioned.

The third thing I’ve noticed is that few, if any, of the residents that I’ve talked to seem to know anything about what constitutes a healthy and balanced diet. They actually believe their dining hall feeds them good meals because it’s required by government guidelines from the sorely outdated food pyramid. What is not known by the residents is just how many chemicals and harmful additives are included in their meals. From what I could gather, the food is mostly cheap and highly processed as it likely is in every other Independent and Assisted Living facility. I very much doubt that the corporations who own such retirement centers scattered throughout the nation dictate that only organic and non-GMO ingredients are used in their food. This would be enormously costly, and I know of no corporation involved in elder care that does it.

The retirement facility that I work in provides a bakery and cookie store for the residents. The residents, of course, love it and I can understand why. Yet, I’m inclined to think that our well-intentioned sweet shop has only exacerbated the rates of dementia and Alzheimer among our residents. And believe me, almost every person living at our facility has some form of serious memory decline which sugar and grains only make worse when they are metabolized in the body. Not only are desserts offered on the lunch and dinner menus, but any resident entering or leaving the facility must pass by the bakery and cookie store. Few can resist the temptation to stop in and buy something sweet. In other words, the very thing that contributes to and exacerbates memory loss is constantly offered to the elderly residents. I doubt that any of them have been told by their physicians that completely eliminating sugar, high fructose corn syrup and grains from one’s diet has, in many reported cases, gradually caused their memories to improve over time. This is why some have referred to Alzheimer’s as Type-3 diabetes. It all depends, of course, on just how bad one’s dementia is but studies have shown marked improvement in memory when sugar is totally eliminated.

It’s not just the residents who are uninformed as to proper nutrition, but so are the greater numbers of doctors. Doctors in medical school are usually given one or two courses on nutrition, and that’s about it. And what little they do teach to their students is based on what the nutritional establishment thinks is a healthy diet which is largely wrong and outdated. This is government advice, the kind we probably don’t want or need.

The medical establishment places little importance on one’s diet as the source of so many health complications. This explains why most doctors during a routine checkup rarely inquire as to what their patients eat on a regular basis. The doctor has not been trained to think in this way, and so he assumes that diet plays little role in one’s overall health. It’s completely irrational and unscientific, and yet this is the way they think. Their entire paradigm is out of whack. It’s like bringing your car to a mechanic because the engine stalls and sputters and him telling you not to worry about what you put into the gas tank because fuel doesn’t really matter in the overall health of one’s car!?

Strangely, humans are the only species on earth that’s confused about what they should eat. One doesn’t find this in the animal world. Much of this confusion in the U.S. is the direct result of decades-long propaganda by the food corporations. They have manipulated us to consume highly refined franken-foods that are not really foods at all. These same food manufacturers have bribed government officials to look the other way when harmful ingredients are added to their products. They also contribute huge sums of money to hospitals and medical schools which, in turn, influences how these same institutions address the subject of processed carbohydrates, refined sugars, and seed oils.

Our universities and medical schools have in their own way contributed to the obesity epidemic in America by the sin of omission, and by publishing studies that were observational in nature and not based on rigorous scientific inquiry. This is the problem when food corporations are allowed to donate large sums of money to medical schools because it essentially guarantees that they will tread lightly when it comes to warning the American consumer about the health dangers of certain foods and ingredients. The concluding data might also be doctored in order to fit prior assumptions, or to not upset the lucrative gravy train that large corporate donors provide (see Dr. Malcolm Kendrik, Doctoring the Data [Columbus Publishing Ltd, 2015]).

The elderly that I’ve had discussions with seemed to have no awareness that part of the reason they’re required to take so many prescriptions is because of decades of a poor diet — namely, the standard American diet that’s heavy on highly processed food that’s been enriched with chemicals most people can’t pronounce, additives, artificial coloring, emulsifiers, preservatives, excessive carbohydrates and seed oils, refined sugars, and ingredients that cause inflammation and weight gain. Decades of eating such chemically laden slop invariably creates a host of health problems, such as diabetes, chronic kidney disease, heart disease, and different metabolic and autoimmune issues, including various forms of cancer.

The elderly who have shared with me their health concerns have been shocked when I’ve told them that Type-2 diabetes can be reversed and that life-long medication for it is unnecessary because diet alone can rectify the problem. Others have told me that they’re content with receiving medication for insulin resistance because it allows them to continue eating sweets. This is the kind of thing only an addict would say. How strange it is that many persons have little interest in ending their ailments when lifestyle and dietary changes are required.

The common assumption seems to be that taking multiple prescriptions is all part of getting older. Yet, I’m not so sure that this is true or has to be the case. There are, in fact, many people who have avoided medication in their older years by simply watching what they eat, consuming only nutrient dense foods, avoiding sugar, and engaging in regular exercise.

Lastly, almost all of the residents faithfully line up to receive their seasonal flu immunizations, including their Covid shot and boosters. This too, in my view, is a reflection of their complete trust in the medical establishment and by extension the federal government itself. I doubt any of them would believe me if I told them that the Covid pandemic was largely a scam and a diabolical effort by our government to gain total control over the American people. They would probably scoff at the idea that the Covid ‘vaccine’ was foolishly rushed and did not go through the rigorous testing procedures and allotted time that all other vaccines are required to endure. The ‘vaccine’ also proved to be ineffective and even dangerous for many people who mindlessly took the jab thinking the pharmaceutical companies could be trusted.

Moreover, there seems to be little awareness or suspicion among most people, elderly or not, that allowing oneself to be injected with vaccines containing strange concoctions of chemicals might not be all that healthy as we’re repeatedly told by Big Pharma. I can only hope that the following generations of Americans will not be so trusting of their physicians and of the medical industrial complex.