During his January 2025 appearance on The Joe Rogan Experience, Mel Gibson discussed the historical case for the resurrection in relation to his upcoming film, The Resurrection of the Christ.

Gibson argued that the Gospel accounts should be taken seriously, pointing in particular to the earliest witnesses who, according to Christian tradition, endured persecution and violent deaths rather than recant their testimony.

Gibson summed up his argument with a line that’s been memed and quoted across the internet: “No one dies for a lie.”

The claim is true, but it has also prompted an obvious objection that’s almost always raised in the comments section: If no one dies for a lie, then why do people so often die for false causes? What about suicide bombers, political assassins, militants and religious extremists who willingly sacrifice themselves for beliefs that are demonstrably false?

At first, that sounds like a pretty strong objection. However, it fundamentally misses the point. Here’s why:

There is a profound difference between dying for something that is false and dying for something you know to be false. People have obviously died throughout history for beliefs that were wrong. The question is whether someone would willingly endure persecution and death for a story they personally knew they had invented.

And this is what makes the Apostles’ testimony so compelling.

They weren’t simply repeating something they had heard from somebody else. They claimed to have personally seen the risen Christ. Their entire message rested on something they said they had witnessed themselves.

According to Christian tradition, Peter was crucified in Rome, Andrew was crucified in Greece, James was executed in Jerusalem, Thomas was killed by a spear in India, Philip was crucified in Hierapolis, Bartholomew was martyred in Armenia, Matthew was martyred in Africa, James the Less was killed in Jerusalem, Thaddaeus was martyred in Armenia or Persia, Simon the Zealot was martyred in Persia, and Matthias, who replaced Judas Iscariot, was also martyred.

Of course, none of this means that people cannot die for something that is false. Islamic militants, for example, may genuinely believe the religious claims for which they are willing to die. Their willingness to die demonstrates the sincerity of their belief. It does not demonstrate that the belief itself is true.

That is the distinction that matters here.

An Islamic terrorist is dying for something he believes to be true, but which he has received from others. He can be sincerely mistaken. The Apostles were claiming something very different. They claimed to have personally seen, heard and encountered the risen Christ.

If they had deliberately invented the resurrection, they would have known it was invented.

That makes their situation fundamentally different. They weren’t defending a belief they had inherited or repeating a story they had been told. They were claiming to be eyewitnesses to the central event they proclaimed.

So the argument is not, “Nobody ever dies for something false.” History obviously disproves that.

The argument is that people may die for a lie they sincerely believe, but why would multiple people willingly endure persecution and death for a testimony they personally knew was fabricated? What would they have to gain in their death?

The Apostles’ deaths do not, by themselves, prove the resurrection. But they do present a serious problem for the idea that the resurrection was simply a deliberate invention by its earliest witnesses.

It reminds me of something Charles Colson once said about the 1974 Watergate scandal. Colson was named one of the “Watergate Seven,” and pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice for attempting to discredit Pentagon analyst Daniel Ellsberg, who had leaked the top-secret Pentagon Papers to the New York Times in an effort to expose the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War.

A year before his imprisonment, while he was still under investigation and facing arrest, Colson’s close friend, Thomas L. Phillips, gave him a copy of Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. Colson devoured the book and soon after became a Christian.

Colson, who was derided by the media at the time for converting to Christianity just prior to his trial, went on to serve seven months of his one-to-three-year sentence. But his newfound faith was no trivial ploy to reduce his punishment.

Upon his release, Colson went on to create Prison Fellowship Ministries, an organisation dedicated to ministering to inmates, former prisoners, and their families. He also established the Christian teaching and resource organisation, The Colson Centre.

In 1982, on Easter Sunday, Colson delivered a sermon to a group of prison inmates. One of the prisoners later recalled the atmosphere as Colson preached. The prisoners were “spellbound,” he said.

In his message, Colson spoke a little about his own experience meeting Christ and admitted that his involvement in the Watergate scandal played a crucial part in convincing him of the truth of the resurrection.

Colson explained:

I know the resurrection is a fact, and Watergate proved it to me.

How?

Because twelve men testified they had seen Jesus raised from the dead, then they proclaimed that truth for 40 years, never once denying it.

Every one was beaten, tortured, stoned and put in prison.

They would not have endured that if it weren’t true.

Watergate embroiled twelve of the most powerful men in the world and they couldn’t keep a lie for three weeks.

You’re telling me twelve apostles could keep a lie for 40 years?

Absolutely impossible.

So, the question is not merely, “Did they die for what they believed?” It is: “Did they have firsthand knowledge that what they were proclaiming was true or false?”

That’s the distinction the objection fails to address.

“Better to dwell in a corner of a housetop, Than in a house shared with a contentious woman.” Proverbs 21:9.

As a pastor, I have encountered many men whose lives are made to be a form of living hell because of their wives. These men usually handle it in different ways.

Some become absolute shells of men, who, though they would get some measure of respect in their profession, anyone who sees them around their wife immediately recognises who rules the roost, and they can see the visible signs of it in the man’s hunched shoulders.

Think Richard, in Keeping Up Appearances.

Some men react badly to a badly behaving wife and seek to tyrannise their wives. These men can become abusive in direct response to years of sexual, emotional and relational coercion, and something snaps inside of them.

Some men adjust their understanding of masculinity. They rationalise it by concluding that their wife is an “alpha” and they are just happy to be married, and they give off a modicum of being content in the situation. These women write their husbands emails of complaint, and make the decisions for him, and he is content to let it happen. His wife, or more often he, will generally tell people that he is the head, but she is the neck. Every now and then you will see a shadow in this man’s eye of pain at the level of disrespect he experiences on a daily basis.

Another subset of this previous group is men who are so lazy, emotionally, relationally, and in various other ways, that they actually do genuinely enjoy that their wife is the leader. It is easier. They have less conflict, because he simply concedes, “Yes, dear.” He probably even believes that men who say he should lead are at best closet misogynists, and he will avidly advocate his situation to anyone who asks. “We are a team,” he says, knowing full well that his wife is the Captain and the Referee.

To summarise, I have encountered more men who are dominated by their wives than men who are abusive. And I expect the numbers are far more weighted in that direction than we realise, because women are far more likely to talk about their situations than men are, and there is very little, if any, stigma for a woman to share about an abusive husband. Even in our claimed egalitarian age, it is still quite shameful for a man to admit to not being the man of his house. So many men suffer in silence and are often shut up when they try to speak.

What I want to do in this piece is address how to avoid falling into such a situation. I want to give some practical advice to men about how to stop their wife from becoming a difficult woman. It is my contention that in the right context, most women can become a difficult woman. But it is not my contention that this is necessarily the man’s fault. Women have agency, and this is often ignored by people who discuss these issues. However, that does not mean there are not things that a man can do to change that likelihood, and balance things in favour of a submissive and comparatively godly wife.

As for men whose wives have already completely subjected them? Well, perhaps they can implement some of this as well. But their job is harder, much harder. Lifelong relational patterns are hard to break out of; they do not develop overnight, nor come out of nowhere. Not every man is a leader, and not every man has the ability to change his environment. A leopard cannot change its spots, right? But God can do miracles. We live in light of these two realities. Just recognise that men in both of these situations are going to have to prepare themselves for conflict. Both, because it will happen, and secondly, because you don’t want to go too far. There are plenty of men who have gone too far in seeking to rein in a domineering woman, and they have suffered the loss of any moral authority as a result. So, be wise, gentlemen.

I want to begin with something Paul says in Titus. He gives this advice to the younger church leader,

“But as for you, speak the things which are proper for sound doctrine: 2 that the older men be sober, reverent, temperate, sound in faith, in love, in patience; 3 the older women likewise, that they be reverent in behavior, not slanderers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things— 4 that they admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed. 6 Likewise, exhort the young men to be sober-minded,…” (Titus 2:1-6).

This is advice for a church leader on what he is to teach about the character of various groups within society. There are some great principles for us to draw from here in beginning this discussion.

Firstly, men, if you want to avoid your wife becoming the difficult woman, you need to recognise how much almost every woman in this society has been robbed of the kind of environment they needed to become the kind of wives that Paul envisions in this passage. For one, whether they were raised in the Church or not, they have almost certainly been raised to either not know what this passage says, or, in the case of many Christians, to actively reject it, and call some of its elements outdated and sexist. Hence, from a very early age, the vast majority of women have been raised, either explicitly or implicitly, to rebel against being the submissive woman.

The vitriol I have heard in the mouths of some women about that term “submission” is incredible. I can bring to mind various examples, but I was once sitting at a conference lunch table just listening to the conversation around me, and the way one of the women just spat out how much she hated teaching that women should submit to husbands was quite telling. Especially considering it had nothing to do with any of the conference talks. I had no idea how the topic came up. She is only one example. I have seen this countless times.

Men, look at this: “3 the older women likewise, that they be reverent in behaviour, not slanderers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things…” You need to recognise that most older women who surrounded your potential wife or wife as they developed into a woman did not fall into any of these categories. Women like Paul describes do exist. I know plenty, but you have to look for them. In fact, our culture kind of likes to brag about women not being reverent. It rewards women who slander either their competition or even the men in their life, for at least sympathy from their friends, or worse, to gain his possessions. The wine-bibbing older woman is a staple represented in film and media. And “teachers of good things…” What have the vast majority of women been given over to teaching, since feminism became the dominant ideology, not just of our women, but of society in general?

So, you need to start from this basis: the woman in your life, who you want to marry, or are married to, has been terribly robbed by a culture that had no intention of teaching her how to be a good wife. In fact, the term “the good wife” has become a derogatory term in our modern culture.

So successful has been the Luciferian-inspired feminist movement that even many Christians think of the biblical wife as a lesser thing. You need to start from this basis. Just assume that, to some degree, your wife’s social context, her education, likely her family environment, and more, are antagonistic in some way towards her being the kind of wife you might have expected.

What Paul advises is that the older women need to be “reverent” and “teachers of good things…” He is not contradicting his teaching in other letters where he says that men should direct the teaching in the church, because he goes on to explain what he means: “4 that they admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children,…” In other words, Paul is saying that the older women need to be respectfully focused on teaching the younger women to fulfil their role. How the church needs this today, in increasing measure.

Hence, men, now that you have recognised that your wife has been robbed of the kind of encouragement and upbringing that most women of previous generations got, you need to find a church environment where she is going to be surrounded by older women who will teach her these things. If, and these women do exist, she learnt this from her mother and her mother is still a part of her life, then that is a boon to you. That is something to celebrate. Feminism has not achieved full acceptance in every household; hence there are oases in this cultural desert. But still, you need to be intentional about this.

You need to recognise that the divorce rate in the churches being roughly similar to the divorce rate in the culture is not an accident. It comes about in large part because most Christians simply do not have a Christian worldview. I cannot get this across to you strongly enough; you need to know this: the men I know who are going through either the destruction of their marriage or their marriage turning into a sexless wasteland all have something in common: they usually stopped going to church, meaning that their wife’s social context got shrunk down to her co-workers and other secular contexts. And many of them were part of churches where the women were dominant over the men, and hence their church context was not very different to secular contexts anyway.

A lot of men think they don’t need church. And, there are probably a small minority of Christian couples out there who are in this situation who can keep a relatively good marriage, while living an unbalanced Christian lifestyle; for it is impossible to be a healthy Christian and ignore the one-another passages in the Bible, that assume we are living in the context of the fellowship of believers. But the overwhelming observational evidence points to the opposite effect. Men, you might not feel the need for church. Your desire for interaction with other people, with whom you disagree on a host of things, will likely go down as you age. But if your wife is disconnected from an environment where other women are going to teach her how to better love and respect you, then you will suffer for it. Many men overlook this, and they suffer as a result.

Similarly, if you are in a church environment which encourages your wife to live like the world, it will have a similar effect. I have lost count of the number of men who have told me that their wife’s divorced friends have ruined their own marriage. This is a well-known phenomenon. The reason that divorce statistics are as high in the church as outside is simply that many Christians ignore what the Bible says about marriage and think that flying a Jesus bumper sticker on their car will make all the difference. But it won’t. Christianity is not the religion of lucky charms. As much as this kind of thinking often seeps back in. Exceptional men might be able to make up the difference themselves; the average Christian man needs this environment for his wife to aid him and his wife in their marriage.

You need to be intentional about spending serious amounts of time with other families who take what Paul says to Titus seriously. And, if the pastor’s wife, or elder’s wives, scorn what the scriptures say here, then you can be certain that your chances of facing a world of hurt in marriage will increase. Hence, to avoid having a difficult wife, find a church gathering where the older women “admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children,…” It is more important than cool music. It is more important than a cool youth program. It is more important than many of the surface things people look for in the church. And those surface things can exist within a church that does this well, but they do not necessarily go together.

You might find it strange that Titus has to “teach or admonish” the older women to love their husbands. But just consider how many women will kill their children in the womb given the chance? Now consider how many women will kick out the father of their children if given the chance? Here are just two indications that Paul, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, understood that loving her children and husband is something that a lot of women need coaching and teaching in. Just as many men need to be trained to love their wives. Paul also shows us that it is older women who will be the primary teachers in this role, not their husbands. It is natural for women to seek the counsel of other, wiser, older women. If your wife is surrounded by bad women, then you will suffer. You will both suffer.

This goes just as much for her being chaste and discreet. There is a bit of a misunderstanding in our culture that men are more obsessed with sex than women. Two things show this is not the case: (1) Go to the beach and look at how most women will dress if social pressure or character does not restrain them, and (2) Look at how women’s soft, and not so soft, porn dominates that reading market. Women and men are both created to be and are sexual creatures. If your wife does not have good influences in this regard, there is a strong possibility she will put herself on display for other men. This culture has trained her to do it.

If a husband has an attractive and desirable wife, which all men want, other men will be interested in her. There is nothing you can do about that. But you can challenge her for flirting with them. But even better if she has responsible, attractive and reverent older women to challenge her in this regard for you.

A lot of women want to be good wives, but as women are highly social creatures that are very impressionable by their environment, they can come under terrible influences from their friends. Be thoughtful about this. Her flirtatious, vivacious personality might have drawn you to her, but if this is not properly turned into discretion in your marriage, you might find yourself in for real trouble. There are countless men who do not give two hoots that she is your wife. She needs direction from wiser women on this as well.

And, of course, this last one is rejected by most Christians: “good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed.” I could tell you stories of even pastors’ wives who scorn this one. I could tell you accounts of older men and women who think this is too limiting for their grand-daughters or daughters. But I don’t have to. You know this one is under attack from society and the church. Some consider it sexist, out-of-date advice; others consider it an unachievable goal that pastors should be embarrassed to hold to, because it is out of reach to most working people today. Others just don’t care what the Bible says, whether Christian or not, and still others would like to follow this command but don’t know how.

If your wife is in an environment where the women scorn this verse, remind yourself that she and her friends were robbed of the culture that trained women to do this well, and acknowledge how she and you are being robbed, at the present moment, by our culture. Titus would not have to tell older women to teach this to younger women if it just came by nature. It doesn’t, at least not all of it. Humans have some level of inborn instinct, but most of what we learn has to be taught, and it can be untaught between the generations.

The culture of women being culture-bearers in the home has been effectively cut off. Even many women who would like to do this find themselves struggling to find other women to partner in doing it with them, because all their friends work during the day. Many of them are having to learn the skills of being productive in the home from scratch.

Even simple things like nutritious, affordable meals are a skill many women are re-learning. If you just ask your wife to be a homemaker, which is her role and you both believe it is, but you leave her to figure out all this on her own, then you might find her getting frustrated and restless in the home, and this has caused many problems for families and husbands. Even the desire to do things God’s way can go wrong without good discipleship.

I find it interesting how many women who do homeschooling, for instance, want to join co-ops of other women to help their kids learn in community. I thought it was supposed to be about schooling in the home? Often, these groups fracture because you have highly independent-minded people seeking to come together for a joint effort, a bit like Baptist church plants.

But the reason they do this is because of the strong desire for the women’s village that most women grew up in, throughout history. Our society has stripped that away from most women, and so doing things God’s way can be a lot harder. Just like it is harder for a man to keep a pure mind when half the women around him dress like they are selling themselves…which in many ways they are.

You need to actively make sure you are reinforcing these standards in your home, but that you are in an environment where others will reinforce them for you. And, by the grace of God, your wife will develop into the kind of woman who can help train other women in this. Which is why it is important to note that Paul says this to young men, “6 Likewise, exhort the young men to be sober-minded…” It is a very brief statement, compared to what he says for the young women. But consider what he is saying.

Many young men do not approach life in a serious way. In fact, many men take some time to develop into their masculine role of providers and guardians of their home. This is why car insurance is more expensive for young men, well into their 20’s. But the sooner you learn to approach these things seriously and diligently, the better off you will be.

But this also helps a man with his wife. Because his wife is much more likely to take him seriously if he takes himself seriously. She is also much more likely to take him seriously if other men, and other women, take him seriously. Men who cut their family and their wives off from a good church often get themselves in trouble in this area. Women like to see their men flourish amongst other men.

A lot of men think all they need to do is their job and centre their life around their wife. But these men show they have no understanding of feminine nature. Women want to see their husband measure up well against other men. If he doesn’t, this diminishes her view of him, and he is more likely to find he has a difficult wife. This one happens so often. Sure, there are exceptions; they can be found in the comments sections of discussions like this across the world. But don’t think you are so special as to be among the exceptions; you likely won’t be.

Take yourself seriously, take your faith seriously, take your wife’s social environment seriously. Many men think more of the social environment of their kids than their wife, and that is their biggest mistake. They often don’t even realise it is a mistake until their kids are out of the home and the wife has gone off to discover herself, because her reading club or co-workers convinced her to, that it is her right.

A lot more could be said about this issue. Men, you have been failed by our culture too, in many ways. Especially in the area of learning how to steward a wife. Most people are never taught this, and the most they learn is from their home environment, which can be hit and miss. And in a culture of broken homes is much more miss than hit.

I just want to briefly mention one more area before I conclude: sex.

Solomon says this,

“Drink water from your own cistern, And running water from your own well. 16 Should your fountains be dispersed abroad, Streams of water in the streets? 17 Let them be only your own, And not for strangers with you. 18 Let your fountain be blessed, And rejoice with the wife of your youth. 19 As a loving deer and a graceful doe, Let her breasts satisfy you at all times; And always be enraptured with her love. 20 For why should you, my son, be enraptured by an immoral woman, And be embraced in the arms of a seductress?” (Prov. 5:15-20).

Many men think that the key to pleasing their wife is being subservient to her. But it is not. I believe women are partially hardwired to joyfully follow a good man if she is trained by other women to do this well. I say partially because the fall has corrupted men and women. I think if a man follows the principles in this article that come from Scripture, his wife is more likely to want to follow him, and they are more likely to forge together well.

But don’t neglect sex in this equation, either. God has conditioned us to desire sex, enjoy sex and even regularly crave sex, both men and women – unless, of course, something has gone terribly wrong, which can happen in this world. If you build a healthy physical craving for each other, by stewarding this well early in your marriage, it will help bond you both together. Some men ruin this with porn, or he or his wife puts on weight, or the wife’s desire is ruined by antidepressants, or some other issues can get in the way. But if you are diligent in being “enraptured” in each other’s love, you will likely still have conflict, but you will come back together as one.

This area is overlooked as a powerful remedy to conflict. A woman who sexually desires her husband is much more willing to want to follow him. She might get things wrong. You might get things wrong. But work, intentionally, to stir up this desire. It will help you more than you know.

If this tap has run dry in your marriage, you will already know how it draws a chasm between both of you. This means you will have to work harder to get back to where you should be. But I think these principles can set you on the right track to getting back to a good place.

Of course, you can seek to do the right things, and your marriage can still fail. We live on the wrong side of paradise, so things can still go wrong. I do not believe that because a woman turns bad it is guaranteed to be her husband’s fault. It can be. But it could also be that you married a bad one. They exist too. But generally speaking, there are good and wise things a man can do to help his marriage have a better chance of success, and telling him to be more of a domesticated and neutered servant, based on a demented understanding of “laying down his life”, is the wrong advice.

Hindu Nationalists in Odisha, an eastern Indian state, want Christians out.

The fresh calls were made during a book launch in memory of local Hindu Nationalist leader Lakshmananda Saraswati, who was assassinated in 2008.

Although Communists (Maoists) admitted to killing Saraswati and four followers, his slaying was initially blamed on Christians.

As a result, Hindus hunted them down, slaughtered them and looted churches.

This is despite local authorities allegedly knowing that Maoists were responsible.

Instead of de-escalating the destruction, the government apparently buried this fact, thereby encouraging the persecution of Christians to continue.

An October 5, 2008 piece from The Hindu reported that Maoists “left two letters at the scene claiming responsibility for the killing.”

A spokesperson for the Communist Party of India then claimed the government “suppressed those letters to help rioters continue with their attacks on the [Christian] minority community.”

He added that Maoists killed the Hindu monk and political leader because he was “forcing tribals and Dalit Christians in Kandhamal to convert to Hinduism.”

Discussing the book launch, John Dayal, a New Delhi-based human rights advocate and author, claims “speakers at the commemoration called for the elimination of Christians from the Kandhamal district.”

Hinting at ethnic cleansing, he alleged that hardline Hindu Nationalists “view Kandhamal as a testing ground for a model that could be extended across the country.”

During the event, Dayal said they openly “called for a ‘church-free’ Odisha and for curbing the activity of people they termed “vidharmis” (infidels).

This “refers to Christian and Muslim citizens, implying their faith is foreign to India’s soil.” For instance, the belief that “to be Indian is to be Hindu.”

Some senior members of the Modi government were in attendance, he recalled, adding that the story of the slain Hindu political leader would be embedded in the school curriculum.

“The Government Medical College and Hospital in Phulbani would also be renamed after Saraswati.”

Commenting on the 2008 persecution of Christians, Dayal described the slaughter as “one of the worst outbreaks of anti-Christian violence in Independent India.

“The violence,” he recounted, “killed at least 39 Christians, though Christian families said they counted more than 100 dead.”

This includes “more than 40 women sexually assaulted, a Catholic nun and a young Hindu woman who was employed by a Christian NGO.”

Additionally, “395 churches were [reportedly] razed or torched, between 5,600 and 6,500 houses plundered or burnt down, over 600 villages ransacked and some 75,000 people left homeless.”

“Many Christian families were burnt alive,” Dayal said, “and thousands were forced to convert to Hinduism under threat of violence.

“Some Hindu families were also assaulted on suspicion of being friends with Christians, and supporters of the Indian National Congress or Congress party,” Modi’s opposition.

He then argued that the investigation and trial of those allegedly involved in the assassination were sketchy, saying, “Prosecutions crawled through the courts for over a decade and produced a conviction rate that lawyers still call a scandal.”

The calls for kicking Christians out of India hit International Christian Concern’s radar hard.

ICC said the book launch was just a guise that “marks a chilling escalation in the fusion of state authority and radical ideological movements.”

The presence of chief government officials, they asserted, “signals that the ‘church-free’ mandate is no longer a peripheral demand.”

Their anti-Christian activism, ICC remarked, is unconstitutional.

“By explicitly demanding a “ban on the activities of heretics,” the movement presents a direct challenge to Article 25 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the freedom to profess, practice, and propagate religion.”

What’s deeply concerning about this, ICC said, is that it’s “not merely a rhetorical flourish.”

It is “a calculated effort to dismantle the operational freedom of Christian institutions by framing their existence as an existential threat to the state.”

Foreign Minister Penny Wong will reportedly use the annual Gyngell Lecture at the Lowy Institute in Sydney to warn that “monoculturalism” poses a threat to Australia’s national security, which is ironic, given that the argument would inadvertently expose the monocultural assumption underpinning multiculturalism itself.

If the government has to warn Australians against thinking in “monocultural” terms, then it’s necessarily asserting that there’s a particular way Australians ought to think about culture, identity, and Australian society. It is to claim there must be some common cultural framework that every Australian is expected to accept.

So, whether one is militantly in favour of multiculturalism or militantly opposed to it, both positions ultimately require some degree of cultural uniformity. The disagreement is only over what that monoculture should consist of, and where its boundaries should be drawn.

Wong’s position inadvertently exposes the weakness in the idea that multiculturalism simply means allowing a genuine diversity of cultures, beliefs, and opinions to coexist.

Clearly, it doesn’t.

At some point, multiculturalism requires a shared doctrine that must be defended, and potentially enforced for the sake of “national security.” As such, multiculturalism can tolerate diversity of cultures and opinion only so long as there is agreement on multiculturalism itself.

Once people are free to reject the doctrine of multiculturalism, the ideological consensus that holds the system together will begin to unravel. In that sense, multiculturalism ultimately depends on a degree of monocultural agreement about the legitimacy of multiculturalism.

But if multiculturalism is compulsory, how is it meaningfully different from the monoculture it condemns?

The supposed champion of diversity therefore finds herself defending a monoculture of her own without even knowing it.

The question is not whether Australia will have a monoculture. The question is which monoculture will be imposed on the nation, what it will hold together, and how much diversity of thought it will tolerate before deeming those thoughts a “threat to national security.”

For decades now, “identity politics” has been one of the central targets of conservative critique. Conservatives have warned against a political approach that elevates group identity, such as race, sex, religion, or “sexual identity,” over and above individual character, shared citizenship, and equal treatment under the law.

Many of the criticisms were well founded. Identity politics can replace personal responsibility with one’s inherited status, fragment national unity into competing factions, and justify unequal treatment in the name of “fairness.” Rather than encouraging merit, civic responsibility, and unity, it can work to entrench division, incentivise grievance, and undermine the principle of equality under the law.

But there was a fatal flaw in the conservative response, and we are paying for it today. Conservatives recognised the potential danger of identity politics, but then convinced themselves that the only solution was to abandon their own identity. There can be no “identity politics” if there are no identities to favour.

At its heart, identity politics exploits that universal human instinct of tribalism. Human beings naturally organise themselves into groups, or tribes—families, societies, peoples, nations, religious communities, and cultures—and they develop loyalties to those particular groups. That instinct is not inherently good or evil. It depends entirely upon where those loyalties are directed and to what end they serve.

For years, “identity politics” has been deployed against the straight, White, Christian, and conservative populations across the Western world—favouring anyone and everyone that doesn’t fall into one or more of those “oppressor” categories. Conservatives were correct to recognise the danger of a system that increasingly defined people according to their group identity and distributed social favour accordingly. Especially when they favoured groups that largely excluded the rightful heirs.

But instead of challenging the premise that identity should determine political treatment, conservatives often accepted it and then simply disarmed themselves. They were told to combat identity politics by rejecting their own collective identity, suppressing their own group loyalties, dissolving their sense of shared heritage, and trusting that individual merit and colour-blind virtues would ultimately prevail.

Meanwhile, virtually every other group was free to organise around its own interests.

And that was the fundamental mistake.

Conservatives abandoned the language of identity while their opponents became increasingly proficient in it. Conservatives were encouraged to see themselves as isolated individuals first and foremost, and members of a people, culture, or civilisation only reluctantly, while others were, and still are, encouraged to organise collectively, articulate their collective interests, cultivate solidarity, and demand political recognition.

You see, conservatives didn’t change the rules of the game. They just gave up playing.

Their opposition to identity politics made them hostile to their own identities. Taken to its logical extreme, their approach became a profoundly anti-national and even globalist posture, without knowing it. This is because identity is unavoidable. Every community, every society distinguishes between insiders and outsiders. Every nation has a common people, a history, a culture, a territory, and a conception of who belongs. Every community, family, organisation, and institution has relationships of loyalty and obligation. Every collective is defined by who is in, and who is out.

The alternative is not a world without identity. It is a world in which meaningful identities are progressively dissolved, individuals are reduced to atomised citizens of an increasingly borderless order, and traditional loyalties are treated as divisive and disorderly.

That’s why the conservative strategy of simply condemning all forms of identity politics has been so crippling. It imposed a standard upon the conservatives that no other faction was prepared to adopt. Conservatives were expected to avoid their own in-group loyalties, refuse collective interests, and condemn any assertion of their own identity, even as competing groups mobilised on those very grounds.

While Conservatives were preoccupied with denouncing every expression of identity politics, others were organising around their identities, defining friend and enemy, building solidarity, and advancing their collective interests.

The problem here is not that people organise around identity. The problem is that Conservatives believed they could be the only group that refused to do so and still somehow succeed.

In truth, they cannot change the way others play the game. But they can refuse to remain uniquely disarmed.

That doesn’t require racial supremacy, hatred, or contempt for outsiders. These are all dishonest terms used to dissuade the “Straight, White, Christian” from engaging in the same collective thinking as everybody else. Nor does it require abandoning the principle of individual dignity or equal justice under the law. It means recognising that people have legitimate obligations to their own families, communities, nations, cultures, and children—and that a civilisation has the right to preserve the inheritance it received and pass it on to the next generation.

For Christians, that obligation must be governed by biblical principles rather than racial animus. We’re not called to despise the foreign, but neither are we commanded to despise our own neighbour, abandon our inheritance, or neglect our responsibility towards our children.

Recognising our shared identity and acting to preserve what has been entrusted to us is not inherently supremacist. Despite what our opponents say, it is not hatred or bigotry. It is responsibility and love.

Diagnosing the threat of “identity politics” simply wasn’t enough. By abandoning their own identity while others strengthened theirs, Conservatives did not abolish tribalism—they simply ensured that they would be the tribe least willing to defend itself.

So, the choice that is before us is not between identity politics and no identity politics. That choice doesn’t exist. It’ll never exist.

The choice is between recognising identity responsibly or surrendering the field to those who recognise it without restraint.

We can’t change the way others play the game.

But we can stop pretending that refusing to play is a winning strategy.

Elon Musk’s social media platform X just scored another significant legal victory in Australia’s Federal Court after a judge ruled that the company can’t simultaneously be regulated under two separate online safety frameworks.

Justice Elizabeth Raper rejected the eSafety Commissioner’s position that the Relevant Electronic Services (RES) Standard applied to X because of features including its direct messaging and encrypted chat functionality.

The RES Standard regulates relevant electronic services, a category that includes certain services providing instant messaging, SMS, MMS or chat functionality.

eSafety’s current guidance specifically states that a social media service with a messaging feature can also be required to comply with the Relevant Electronic Services Standard for certain types of unlawful material.

The regulator’s own guidance took the opposite position, stating that a service could qualify as a relevant electronic service “regardless of whether” it also met the definition of another type of service under the Act or an industry code.

However, the Federal Court rejected eSafety’s interpretation that a service could fall within both the “social media service” and “relevant electronic service” definitions under the Online Safety Act.

“I accept X Corp’s characterisation of the facts that the RES Standard has been made by the commissioner... as a standard applicable to participants in a different section of the online industry, that are specified... as ‘providers of relevant electronic services’,” the judge said.

“The commissioner’s construction would not sit comfortably with the Act’s structure.

“It would allow the commissioner, as has happened here, to create a standard and apply it to a provider who is already the subject of another industry sector code and effectively bypass the consultative industry-led model.”

As such, the Court ruled that the RES Standard did not apply to X because X fell within the social media services regulatory framework.

X initiated legal proceedings challenging eSafety’s application of the RES Standard to the platform, arguing that the Standard did not apply to its service or, alternatively, was not validly made.

It is unclear if the regulator will appeal the court’s decision.

Australian radio host Kyle Sandilands has admitted he was “so wrong” to promote COVID-19 vaccination during the pandemic, saying broadcasters were “fooled” by the government and that important information about the vaccines was withheld from the public.

Speaking on Kyle Sandilands Live, Sandilands reflected on his role in the national vaccination campaign and the pro-vaccine song Get Vaxxed Baby, which he recorded in 2021.

“I will admit, I was so wrong,” Sandilands said.

“I was involved, and a lot of people, a lot of broadcasters, TV presenters were — we were all fooled at one stage by the government. Remember I did that dumb song? Get Vax Baby? Oh, I thought I was doing the right thing.”

Sandilands said he had not been paid to promote the campaign, despite speculation at the time, and argued that he was simply trying to communicate what authorities had presented as an urgent public-health message.

“I was trying, like everyone else, to get the message out that we were told was imperative,” he said.

He then criticised the government’s communication surrounding COVID-19 transmission and vaccination, arguing that Australians were not adequately informed that vaccinated people could still contract and transmit the virus.

“What about when they knew — the government knew — that even if we got the vaccine, we could still get COVID and we could still pass it on?” Sandilands said.

“But they never told us that. They kept it from us.”

Co-hosts also raised questions about how COVID-19 deaths were counted during the pandemic, claiming that people who died from other causes could be recorded as COVID victims if they had tested positive.

The co-host also criticised the restrictions placed on public discussion of COVID-19 during the pandemic, saying he was now relieved to be able to speak openly about his views.

“I’m glad I can say that now because we had a woke censor and ACMA rules,” he said.

This is not the first time Sandilands has criticised the COVID vaccination push. His recent remarks echo comments he made in 2022, when he described his participation in the vaccination campaign as an effort to “con” Australians into getting vaccinated.

At the time, Sandilands criticised the NSW Police Force after claiming he had encountered difficulties obtaining a liquor licence because he was not considered a “fit and proper person.”

He pointed to what he saw as a contradiction between that assessment and his earlier involvement in the government’s national vaccination campaign.

“I’m fit and proper to do the national campaign to con everyone into getting vaccinated,” Sandilands said at the time.

In 2021, Sandilands recorded a pro-vaccine rap titled Get Vaxxed Baby, which was played during advertising breaks on Network Ten and MTV.

The track was based on Vanilla Ice’s Ice Ice Baby and urged Australians to get vaccinated against COVID-19.

Then-Prime Minister Scott Morrison publicly congratulated Sandilands for the campaign, reportedly telling him that his children enjoyed the song. Former NSW Health Minister Brad Hazzard also praised the effort, describing it as “fantastic.”

The music video has since attracted more than 127,000 views on YouTube.

WATCH [strong language warning]:

According to a recent report, more than half of Australians have lost confidence that people of all faiths and backgrounds can live safely together in the wake of the Bondi Beach terror attack.

The new finding comes from research conducted on behalf of the Combat Antisemitism Movement. It found that 52 per cent of Australians said they were less confident in social harmony, while just 15 per cent said they were more confident that people of different faiths and backgrounds could live safely together following the December 2025 attack.

To be honest, the fact that the figure is only 52 per cent is surprising. You would think it would be much higher.

How can Australians be so naïve as to believe that people of fundamentally different faiths can simply live together harmoniously? It sounds nice in theory, but to believe that religious differences are irrelevant to social cohesion requires abandoning any meaningful understanding of what it actually means to have a different faith.

We are not talking about different denominations of Christianity disagreeing over infant baptism, hymn books or whether women should hold a church office. We are talking about different religions—in other words, different gods and fundamentally different understandings of ultimate reality.

Think about the implications of that for a moment.

Different gods mean different understandings of what is true and false, right and wrong, good and evil. Different religions make different claims about how truth is discovered, what man is obligated to do and what constitutes moral behaviour.

One religion may consider a particular practice sacred while another considers it morally evil. One may permit a form of marriage that another prohibits. One may regard conversion as essential while another considers apostasy a crime deserving death. One may impose religious laws concerning food, sexuality, family or punishment that another completely rejects.

These are not insignificant differences.

They are contradictory moral claims.

So, which god takes precedence? Which moral law governs when two religions make contradictory demands?

There must inevitably be some religious hierarchy of authority. Whenever moral laws are applied to an entire society, someone must ultimately determine which standards are binding.

This is one reason the Christian conception of God is so significant to Western civilisation. Christianity does not present morality as merely tribal or factional. It teaches that there is one God who created all mankind and whose moral authority stands above every tribe, nation, ruler and political faction.

The same moral law applies to the king and the commoner, to friend and enemy, to the powerful and powerless.

That provides the conceptual basis for universal morality.

Polytheism, by contrast, fragments ultimate authority. If different groups appeal to different gods, each with different powers, commands, interests and moral expectations, then there is no universally recognised divine authority above them.

One deity may permit what another forbids.

Different groups can therefore appeal to different gods to justify competing understandings of marriage, sexuality, warfare, sacrifice, justice and social obligation. Religious factions can become political factions, with people identifying more strongly with their god, temple, tribe or religious community than with the society as a whole.

Polytheism creates social disunity because it decentralises ultimate authority.

And without a recognised religious authority above competing gods, there is no common ultimate standard to resolve fundamental moral disagreements.

This is precisely the problem with the modern assumption that multiculturalism and religious pluralism will automatically produce harmony. They often demand that we accept radically contradictory belief systems as equally legitimate without ever explaining how their contradictions are to be resolved.

But harmony requires something people have in common.

So what is it?

It is not their heritage, culture, customs, religion, morality, ethics or understanding of human purpose. And yet we are told that all these differences can somehow be overcome through a shared commitment to multiculturalism, relativism and pluralism.

But on what basis?

Why should we think people with fundamentally different religious convictions will accept the doctrine that all religions and moral systems are equally valid? Why should we think them willing to suspend the exclusive claims of their own faith in order to participate in a pluralistic society that effectively treats competing gods as equally legitimate?

In practice, this is little more than a return to polytheism—a society in which competing conceptions of ultimate authority coexist without any universally acknowledged authority above them.

And that is why belief is not some irrelevant secondary factor when it comes to social harmony. It is one of the most fundamental factors determining whether a society can establish a coherent moral order.

The West did not develop its understanding of universal human dignity, moral accountability and the limits of political authority in a religious vacuum. These ideas were profoundly shaped by Christianity.

But peaceful coexistence is not the same thing as genuine social unity.

A nation needs more than people living beside one another. It needs some common understanding of truth, morality, justice, authority and human purpose.

So when 52 per cent of Australians say they have become less confident that people of different faiths can live safely together, perhaps the answer is not simply to demand more multiculturalism.

Perhaps we should start asking the question multiculturalism has largely avoided:

What, exactly, is supposed to unite people who disagree about the most fundamental questions of reality, morality and human purpose?

If we have no shared understanding of what is true and what is good, what ultimately binds us together?

A passport?

A geographical border?

A vague commitment to “diversity”?

These things can create a fragmented population. They cannot, by themselves, create a unified society.

If there is no moral authority above competing religions, cultures and factions, then social harmony ultimately depends upon everyone voluntarily restraining themselves—and that becomes increasingly difficult when people disagree about what they are morally obligated to do.

You cannot build a stable society by declaring contradictory moral systems equally authoritative and simply hoping they will never collide. If there is no higher standard to which everyone is accountable, then there is no genuine foundation for social harmony—only a fragile truce between competing gods, competing moralities, and competing expectations of what society ought to be.

People will often say, “I don’t believe in God,” but it’s rare to hear someone say, “I don’t believe in evil.”

That is a hard conclusion to come to, especially when the horrors and atrocities of the world are live-streamed directly to our phones through social media. Evil is hard to miss—so hard, in fact, that even those who reject God do not hesitate to condemn genocide, rape, slavery, child abuse, and torture as “evil.”

They don’t merely dislike these things. They don’t speak of them as a matter of personal preference. They talk as though they are objectively wrong.

We all instinctively appeal to a moral standard that stands above the beliefs of the individual, cultural norms, and government dictates. It’s why anyone can pronounce moral judgements against other individuals, differing cultural practices, and the actions of foreign governments.

Whether we are aware of it or not, in doing so, we are actually appealing to a moral measure outside of ourselves—an above standard to which the individual and collective ought to conform.

But where does that assumed standard come from?

If the universe is nothing more than matter in motion, then concepts like good and evil are ultimately products of human opinion, biology, chemical reactions in the brain, or social convention. One society’s values might differ from another’s, but there’s no higher court to appeal to. We can only describe actions as popular or unpopular, but calling them objectively evil is impossible to justify if one does not believe in God.

Yet our moral instincts resist that conclusion. We don’t believe the horrors of history were merely unfortunate cultural preferences, or that child abuse is only wrong because most people dislike it. Most people believe these things would remain morally wrong, even if everyone approved of them.

That conviction points beyond ourselves. It suggests that morality is discovered without, rather than invented from within, that good and evil are realities, not just personal opinions.

But if evil is real in an objective sense, then it raises another important question: Is there an objective good? Evil is not something that exists independently. It is the corruption or absence of what ought to be. Just as darkness is the absence of light, evil presupposes a standard of good from which it deviates or departs.

So, the question is not simply whether God exists, but whether our belief in objective evil already assumes the kind of moral universe that only a belief in God can justify.

Libertarian NSW MLC John Ruddick has condemned Australia’s ongoing and ever-growing assault on free speech, accusing Australia’s eSafety Commissioner of waging a campaign against independent media and online communication platforms.

Speaking in the New South Wales Parliament this week, Ruddick pointed to the federal government’s legal action against the encrypted messaging platform Telegram and the recent suspension of independent Australian news outlet The Noticer from X as evidence that governments are increasingly seeking to control what Australians can see, read, and say online.

“The battle over free speech will go on and on until we amend the New South Wales Constitution and the Commonwealth Constitution to enshrine the citizens’ right to free speech,” Ruddick said.

Ruddick’s motion comes after the eSafety Commissioner launched civil penalty proceedings against Telegram in the Federal Court on June 30, alleging the platform had failed to comply with Australian online safety requirements.

Ruddick argued that targeting entire communication platforms over posted content sets “a dangerous precedent for government control over digital speech.”

He said Telegram is relied upon by millions of users for private communication, journalism, and everyday conversation, and argued that criminal activity online should be dealt with by prosecuting the offenders, not by censoring or shutting down platforms used by law-abiding Australians.

Ruddick also noted the recent suspension of popular Australian-first news outlet The Noticer from X.

“The timing of The Noticer’s suspension, coming shortly after the eSafety Commissioner’s aggressive action against Telegram, raises legitimate questions about whether Australian regulators or other agencies are applying pressure on platforms to silence dissenting or independent voices,” he said.

He further argued that the eSafety Commissioner has developed a pattern of regulatory overreach, citing several recent legal defeats. Among them, he referenced the Full Federal Court’s dismissal of the Commissioner’s appeal in the Baumgarten case involving criticism of a primary school’s queer club, the Administrative Review Tribunal’s decision overturning a takedown order against commentator Chris Elston, also known as Billboard Chris, in 2025, and the Commissioner’s abandoned Federal Court case against X after the court refused to grant a global injunction over footage of the stabbing of Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel.

Ruddick rightly noted that those defeats demonstrate that the regulator has repeatedly exceeded its authority.

“These repeated losses expose overreach by an unelected regulator, risking further chilling of lawful speech, independent journalism and open debate,” he said.

Ruddick went even further and argued that the government’s actions form part of “a broader and ongoing attempt to censor right-leaning political commentary and discussion in Australia.”

He said lasting protection will only come through constitutional reform, arguing that Australians should have an explicit constitutional guarantee preventing governments from restricting access to lawful information or policing public debate.

Sharing a video of his speech on X, Ruddick said, “There is only one solution to the free speech crisis in Australia—a constitutional amendment which prohibits the government from curbing what information you can and cannot access.”

Ruddick is absolutely correct. Australia likes to pride itself on being a “democracy,” yet democracy depends on the fundamental right of citizens to speak freely—and therefore to think freely—without fear of persecution, reprisal, or punishment.

Just as there is an inseparable connection between a free society and the freedom to communicate, there is an equally vital link between free speech and free thought. Speech is, after all, the outward expression of thought. It is how ideas pass from one mind to another.

In a country where people face consequences for what they say, there are inevitably consequences for what they think. When certain opinions become too costly to express, they are gradually driven from public discourse. As a result, the range of ideas that can be freely debated is narrowed only to those the state is willing to tolerate.

To restrict speech is to restrict thought—not only by limiting what people can say, but by limiting the ideas others are permitted to hear, consider, and ultimately accept.

For decades, talk of the “Great Replacement” has been demonised as a dangerous conspiracy theory.

Google it today, and the top result states:

“The ‘Great Replacement’ is a debunked far-right, white nationalist conspiracy theory which claims that a deliberate plot—often blamed on political elites or Jewish people—is underway to replace white European populations with non-white immigrants through mass migration and lower birth rates.”

Yet while attributing demographic change to a deliberate plot by a particular group may be what critics label a “conspiracy,” people of European descent are often condemned simply for observing demographic shifts occurring across Europe and the Anglosphere.

At the same time, there is no shortage of public voices openly celebrating the decline or dissolution of white populations within their own historic homelands.

Here’s just a small sampling:

In other words, “It’s not happening, conspiracy theorist… but it’s a good thing that it is.”

Of course, demonising those who discuss this is nothing short of narrative control. It’s designed to stop people from talking about what is glaringly obvious to anyone paying attention. It’s a reality the media acknowledges, celebrities and politicians cheer, and ordinary Europeans grow steadily more alarmed by.

And that reality just became even harder to deny. A new website now tracks the numbers in real time. The “Replacement Clock” charts the European-descended share of the world’s population and of 45 nations from 1950 to 2100. And it consolidates historical figures and modelled projections into a single interactive timeline.

The site defines European Ancestry as “Ancestry traceable to the indigenous peoples of the European continent — the populations present in Europe prior to the modern era of intercontinental migration.”

It tracks the declining White share of the global population and of the populations of 45 historically White nations across the same period.

The website functions as a live demographic counter, estimating changes in ethnic composition in real time using births, deaths, immigration and emigration data.

The site states:

“Accurate ethnic demographic data for Western countries is uniquely difficult to access. No country directly tracks the share of its population that is of European descent. Several nations prohibit or restrict its collection outright; France’s ban on ethnic statistics is the most prominent but not the only case. In other countries, official statistics obscure long-term trends through inconsistent census categories and aggregation methods that flatten meaningful distinctions, while institutional cultures treat demographic inquiry itself as inherently suspect. The result is a landscape in which some of the most consequential facts about the trajectory of Western societies are among the hardest to establish with precision.

This project exists to close that gap. It draws on the best available demographic evidence to reconstruct the European-descended share of each population across time, using a consistent definition across countries and eras. The sources, assumptions, and adjustments behind every figure are open to inspection. Demographic composition is a matter of public interest, not a protected secret. Western peoples deserve to know what time it is.”

You can view the website here.

No doubt some will reply, “What does it matter? Who cares if White people disappear?” Depending on who you are, that response is either genocidal at heart or suicidal. It’s a posture uniquely expected of White people in particular.

For instance, no one finds it strange or misplaced when Jewish people concern themselves with the survival of their own people. Members of every other ethnic group can lobby for the continuation of their people and rightly receive praise for it—except people of European descent.

Why?

Why is it that Europeans have been uniquely conditioned and propagandised to despise themselves, sacrifice their children, and forfeit their heritage to strangers? Some will blame historic injustices such as slavery or the events of World War II. Yet surely those explanations are themselves part of the continual psychological operation against European peoples, because none of those sins are unique to “Whites.”

In fact, White people have done more than any other group to end slavery and to restrain war crimes and genocides the world over. So, why the unique double standards? Why the special hatred reserved for Whites? Why the selective “privileges” and “rights”? Even asking these questions makes some people uncomfortable.

Today, “White Supremacy” is not so much about the White man thinking himself superior to other races, as the White man thinking himself equal to them. People of every other race may openly speak and act for the continuation and preservation of their own ethnic group and the culture unique to their people. White people alone are disqualified from ever doing the same. Every effort is denounced as “supremacist,” and likened to Nazi Germany.

Many theories have been offered as to why this is. Perhaps none nails the issue more precisely than JD Hall in his piece, “On Satan’s Unique Hatred for the Anglo-Saxon People.” In it, Hall argues that the Anglo-Saxon peoples, shaped over centuries by Christianity, played a uniquely influential role in advancing human flourishing through the spread of the Gospel, the development of common law, stable institutions, technological innovations, and global missionary work.

Insight to Incite: Open Source Intelligence Analysis

On Satan's Unique Hatred for the Anglo Saxon People

When an evangelical outsider like Mike Cernovich observes that a demonic intelligence seeking to maximize human suffering would target the white population, the claim deserves sober attention. Not because white people are innocent or superior (they are neither) but because they have been uniquely effective at restraining chaos through Christian order. This article argues that the attack is real, coordinated, and ancient in method. What is being dismantled is not skin color, but a people whose faith-shaped way of life once kept the darkness in check…

Listen now

7 months ago · 120 likes · 9 comments · JD Hall

These achievements were the product of the Christian faith combined with Anglo-Saxon cultural traits, transforming a once-pagan people into a civilisation that exported law, education, medicine, industry, and most importantly, biblical teaching around the world.

Hall contends that Anglo-Saxon identity and heritage have become uniquely targeted in the modern West through cultural, demographic, and historical vandalism as part of a broader spiritual conflict in which Satan seeks to dismantle the people most responsible for undermining his destructive efforts by spreading Christianity.

Quoting journalist Mike Cernovich—“If you were a demon with dominion over the planet, and you wanted to increase the amount of human suffering across the world, you would eliminate the white people”—Hall notes that the continued decline of Anglo-Saxon people and culture would weaken the global influence of the Gospel and the institutions that have improved human life the world over.

The numbers on the Replacement Clock are not abstract statistics. They are the visible, measurable outcome of a decades-long campaign that has been denied, mocked, and punished whenever the children of Europe dared to notice it and discuss it.

While every other people on earth is permitted—indeed encouraged—to defend its own interests and its own continuity, those of European descent are told that noticing their own displacement is hate, that caring about their children’s inheritance is supremacy, and that the steady erasure of their nations is either imaginary or a moral good.

The data makes that lie simply unsustainable. What remains is the question of whether a people conditioned to hate itself will finally refuse the script, or whether it will continue sleepwalking into the oblivion that its enemies, both spiritual and temporal, have so evidently prepared.

There have been two news stories running side by side this week, and at first glance they might appear to be contradictory. In Arizona, a court ruled that a church did not have to hand a confession over to the state. Meanwhile, in Michigan and Maryland, the federal government is telling two school districts they do not get to keep information about stud…

Read more

More than 20 Christians were killed in three separate attacks linked to the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF) in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo over a five-day period in July, according to reports from persecution monitoring organisations and local sources.

The attacks took place between 12 and 16 July in North Kivu’s Beni Territory. The ADF, an armed group with ties to the Islamic State, first attacked an area west of Beni city on 12 July, killing seven civilians and three Congolese soldiers.

Two days later, on 14 July, militants attacked the predominantly Christian commune of Mangina, killing six people in total, including a church elder and a worship leader.

Six others were injured, several homes were set ablaze, and one person was reported missing. The group returned to the area days later, killing a further ten people before Congolese armed forces finally intervened.

The ADF has operated in eastern Congo for decades and pledged allegiance to Islamic State in 2019. The group has been accused of carrying out massacres, kidnappings, and other abuses against civilians, and especially Christians, right across North Kivu and Ituri provinces.

Christian persecution monitoring organisation, Open Doors, has repeatedly identified the Democratic Republic of Congo as one of the countries where Christians face significant threats.

The organisation has documented hundreds of Christian deaths linked to ADF violence in recent years, including violent attacks against Christian gatherings and communities.

Amnesty International has also documented abuses committed by the ADF, including the abduction of civilians and sexual violence against women and girls in eastern Congo.

A new independent documentary is set to chronicle the remarkable transformation of Australian actor Damien Richardson by tracing his journey from a familiar television face to one of Australia’s most recognisable critics of the government’s draconian COVID-era response.

Titled Becoming Damo, the film follows Richardson across approximately six years as he underwent what filmmaker Nicholas Wightman describes as a period of “profound personal and political change” during one of the darkest chapters in Victoria’s recent history.

As the city of Melbourne endured some of the world’s longest and harshest COVID restrictions, Richardson—best known for his roles in Australian film and television, including Neighbours and Jack Irish—emerged as a prominent figure in demonstrations opposing lockdowns, vaccine mandates, and government-imposed restrictions.

According to the documentary’s synopsis, Becoming Damo follows Richardson’s evolution “from actor to protester,” documenting his progression from speaking at rallies to becoming increasingly vocal in his criticism of governments, courts, and the political trajectory of Australia.

The documentary unfolds against the backdrop of Melbourne’s heavy-handed approach to COVID, where the state had enforced some of the toughest restrictions in the world. This inevitably gave rise to a growing resistance among the public, and as freedom protests intensified with mass demonstrations drawing tens of thousands into the city’s CBD, so too did Richardson’s public profile.

But rather than presenting a partisan and biased account, the filmmakers say Becoming Damo seeks to document events without directing audiences towards a predetermined conclusion. Instead, viewers are invited to “reach their own conclusions.”

“Neither an endorsement nor a condemnation of its subject,” the synopsis explains, “Becoming Damo observes a complicated character moving through an equally complicated moment in Australian history.”

Speaking with Caldron Pool, Richardson said the documentary represents far more than his personal story.

“As far as I am concerned this documentary is testament to the spirit of resistance ignited in so many Australians because of the hypocrisy of the COVID lockdowns,” Richardson said.

“Unfortunately, this period has become indicative of a wider corruption that besets our nation.”

For supporters, Richardson came to embody a growing movement of Australians who believed governments had exceeded their authority in the name of public health.

The film, which is dedicated to the people of Melbourne, has no release date yet but is expected to drop later this year or early next.

WATCH TRAILER:

Rupert Lowe, leader of Restore Britain, has called on Reform UK leader Nigel Farage to set aside their long-running differences and work together in the national interest, saying their personal grievances must not stand in the way of delivering a patriotic government for Britain.

It is said the relationship between Lowe and Farage deteriorated in early 2025 after Lowe was critical of Farage’s “messianic” leadership style and argued that Reform UK remained more of a protest movement than a serious party of government.

A day later, Reform suspended Lowe from the party, citing bullying complaints from staff and alleging that he had made verbal threats against party chairman Zia Yusuf, claims which were later referred to police. Lowe vehemently denied all allegations and described them as a politically motivated “witch-hunt” and a “political assassination” designed to remove a rival within the party.

The Crown Prosecution Service ultimately decided there was no evidence to bring any criminal charges over the allegations.

Lowe subsequently left Reform UK and continued to serve as an independent MP before launching Restore Britain, a movement dedicated to advancing a more uncompromising programme of national renewal and restoration.

Despite their history, Lowe has now publicly extended a conditional olive branch to Farage, arguing that the British people deserve nothing less.

Over the weekend, Lowe published a video on social media addressed directly to Farage. In the short clip, he urged the Reform leader to put aside personal animosity and consider cooperation between their respective movements for the sake of the country.

“So Nigel, my message is simple,” Lowe began. “If you are prepared to work together around serious policies, serious reform, and serious government, then so are we.”

He made it clear that the offer was not politically expedient nor personally comfortable. Instead, Lowe argued that Britain’s national interest should take precedence over personal disputes.

“Not because it’s politically convenient for Restore Britain. Not because it’s personally easy. After the events of the last 18 months, I would certainly rather not be making this offer.

“But millions and millions of British people deserve a patriotic government that puts our national interests before any personal differences that you and I may have.”

Lowe went on to warn that persistent division on the right risks handing victory to Britain’s political Left.

“I truly believe there could be sufficient common ground for our two movements to cooperate collectively, destroy the looming left-wing alliance that will finish off what hope remains for this country.”

Lowe pointed to recent cooperative efforts between Restore Britain and Reform UK representatives on Norfolk County Council, suggesting that those successful local collaborations demonstrated what could be achieved nationally.

“We have recently shown how effectively cooperation can work locally on Norfolk County Council. So why not at national level?

“In my view,” Lowe said, “failing to even try because of our own personal differences is simply not an option. The British people deserve nothing less than our best and sincere efforts to make it happen.

“Now is the time to put our differences aside and cooperate for the good of the country that we all love,” he said.

While Lowe’s video has been widely praised by supporters on both sides, Farage is yet to respond directly to the offer. He did, however, post a statement the same day, which many have understood as an indirect response.

Although he did not mention Restore Britain or name Lowe, Farage described the next election as an “existential fight,” and a choice between Reform UK and Labour.

However, Farage said he is building a broad coalition, and said Reform is open to people from other parties who share its goals on borders, the economy, democracy, and putting British people first.

Watch Lowe’s full offer to Farage and the conditions of cooperation below:

Arbitrary laws built on far-left lawfare have claimed the job of an Oregon educator.

Clinical social worker Rod Theis was fired for refusing to remove kids’ books from his desk that affirmed binary biology.

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) took on the censorship case in 2025 after InterMountain Education Service District acted on a single complaint.

That complaint saw the school send Theis a letter telling him that the Matt Walsh material violated the school’s “inclusion” policies, as dictated by Oregon law.

He appealed in court. That court then conditionally ruled in his favour, allowing the books as long as they were not displayed when kids were around.

Students were later filmed by another teacher looking at the books, and filed a second complaint.

According to the East Oregonian (EO), “Oregon law prohibits discrimination in public education and requires education providers to adopt policies addressing what it deems “bias incidents.”

“The district’s “Every Student Belongs” policy defines a bias incident as a “hostile expression of animus” based on a protected characteristic, including gender identity.”

Theis held the line, so the school, acting on the state’s “diversity, equity and inclusion” laws, ironically, terminated his employment.

Long story short, the 9^th Circuit heard an appeal to the District Court ruling, and has now ruled that the school booting Theis was justified.

As EO reported, his promotion of binary biology “was not protected by the First Amendment when students were present in his office.”

Addressing the blatant double standard, ADF explained that, “InterMountain and the schools it serves allow employees to decorate their offices with all kinds of personal items, including paintings, photos, quotes, books, and even posters or statements that convey political messages, such as promoting unions, Black Lives Matter, and the LGBT movement.

“The messages,” they asserted, “are not InterMountain’s or the schools’; they are the personal expression of employees.

“But after one teacher complained, InterMountain ordered Theis to remove the books because they promote a “binary view of gender.”

After the first ADF win, the teacher who originally made the complaint “coordinated a set-up that allowed students Theis didn’t serve to view the books.”

Labelled “transphobic” and “hostile,” ADF recounted that “InterMountain then fired Theis.

The ruling released on 21 July stated, “Although Theis contends that his display of the books reflects his religious beliefs, the Free Exercise Clause does not provide a right to engage in conduct restricted by a workplace rule simply because that conduct is religiously motivated.”

The 9^th Circuit noted the free-speech components, cited jurisdiction issues, then dismissed the case.

ADF said the court rejected their arguments and upheld the school’s right to demand that Theis remove Walsh’s binary biology affirming, He is He, She is She, and Johnny the Walrus, from his office.

Remarking on the case, Theis stated, “Government officials are wrong to tell me, or any other employee, what personal views we can express.”

Spain has reportedly deployed Armed Forces personnel to its North African enclave of Ceuta after hordes of military-aged men streamed across the border from Morocco, overwhelming local authorities and resulting in at least 10 deaths.

According to reports, the Spanish government said troops would assist the Civil Guard in “maintaining security in the city of Ceuta.”

Footage of the invasion has gone viral across social media, with many users likening it to scenes from a horror film. Locals have described the situation as “absolute chaos.”

Rachid Sbihi, head of the association representing Civil Guard officers at the border, told the Associated Press that precise numbers were hard to confirm but "thousands of migrants" had crossed and the frontier had "totally collapsed."

Ceuta’s regional president, Juan Jesús Vivas, had earlier called on Madrid to declare a national emergency and send army reinforcements, citing overwhelmed reception centres where hundreds of recent arrivals were already sleeping on the streets.

More than 1,500 migrants had entered in the preceding week, with a sharp escalation overnight and throughout Thursday.

The central government declined a formal national emergency declaration (noting that migration flows do not legally qualify as a national security risk under existing rules) but moved to deploy forces and coordinate with Morocco.

Reform UK leader Nigel Farage responded to the news in a video posted to X, urging the people to “wake up” and describing the invasion as a “battle for the future of our civilisation.”

Farage reminded his followers that earlier this year, Spain began a process to grant legal status and work rights to up to half a million illegal migrants. It was a move the government described as part of its efforts to defeat the so-called “far right.”

The initiative formally started in January this year, following a last-minute agreement between the ruling Socialist Party (PSOE) and its left-wing coalition partner, Podemos, which has supported Prime Minister Sánchez’s minority government since the 2023 general election.

A government spokesman said the policy was intended to counter political trends on the right, stating: “We not only intend to remain a beacon, but I want to believe that we will be a seed and a germ to fight against the advance of this far-Right wave that is trying to gain ground, and against which we will do everything in our power to stop it.”

Under the scheme, undocumented migrants, asylum seekers, and individuals who have been living in Spain for more than five months by December 31, 2025, will be eligible to apply for legal status between early April and June 30 this year.

Podemos said the legislation would help dismantle what it described as “institutional racism that only fuels exploitation and racist hatred.” The government has also framed the move as a political challenge to the right-wing Vox party, which has gained support in recent polling.

Spain’s so-called “far-right” movement, led by Vox, is currently experiencing a significant surge in support. Under the leadership of Santiago Abascal, Vox has tapped into widespread public concern over national identity, border security, cultural cohesion, and the prioritisation of Spanish citizens.

Recent polling from January 2026 shows Vox consistently attracting between 17 and 19 per cent of the national vote. Surveys conducted by organisations such as DYM/Henneo and El País place the party at around 18 per cent or higher in some projections.

The government’s decision to grant legal status to half a million migrants to “fight the far-right” has been condemned internationally, not only because of its scale, but because of what the Spanish government has openly acknowledged in defending it.

By framing the mass introduction of migrants as an instrument to counter their political opponents, authorities have confirmed a suspicion long held by many across the Western world: that large-scale population movements are not a humanitarian necessity, but a political weapon against Nationalism.

As such, it’s become increasingly evident that migration is leveraged to reshape electorates, blunt dissent, and overwhelm opposition movements that draw support from concerns about national sovereignty, cultural continuity, and democratic accountability.

Spain isn’t unique. For decades, governments across Europe have facilitated the mass introduction of incompatible peoples. Despite the warnings, the social fragmentation, public protests, and vocal opposition from their own citizens, politicians throughout the Western world have not only effectively kept their borders open to large-scale migration but have also enticed immigrants by offering the prospect of economic opportunity, legal protections, and access to welfare systems.

It’s Spain today. And tomorrow, who knows?

Written by Mark Powell

How could the Trojans be so Naive?

Like so many others, I have always been fascinated by Homer’s poem, The Odyssey. Especially how Odysseus so cleverly outwitted the Trojans through the gift of an enormous ‘sacrificial’ horse. But it seems like the naivety of the people of ancient Troy is being repeated once again through their naive lack of discernment regarding Christopher Nolan’s novel retelling of the ancient Greek epic.

Sadly, many political conservatives, as well as even Christian commentators, have missed the woke agenda hidden within Nolan’s film. Ironically, the movie itself is a modern-day ‘trojan horse’ deceiving people into welcoming a morally subversive message behind the wall of their intellectual defences and so into their hearts. People are so impressed and overawed by the technological innovation of the first film shot entirely using IMAX that they’re failing to see the problem within.

For example, Ben Shapiro and Jonathan Prager have both given glowing reviews. Whereas Christianity Today even contends that Nolan’s Odyssey ‘deconstructs Western culture’s glorification of aggression” with “the implied thesis” being that it is a personification of Christ’s beatitude, “Blessed are the peacemakers” (Matt. 5:9). O dear, we really are living in the last days!

The Danger of Outrage Fatigue...

A large part of the reason why people have downplayed, or even missed altogether, the politically progressive messaging is not simply because the film itself is so audibly overwhelming and visually stunning, it is after all a Nolan film! But because they’re suffering from what is known as ‘outrage fatigue’.

Most people knew and could identify what the potential ideological threats hidden inside the film was long before it was released. But as time wore on, those same people grew tired and were no longer as watchful regarding the ideological danger which still lay hidden within.

For example, even I don’t frankly have the energy to dissect Penelope’s feminist tirade at the end of the film where she whines to the suitors about how she should be king. Yes, even 3000 years ago the patriarchy was the blame. But as Matt Walshe pointed out:

In ‘Apocalypto,’ Mel Gibson transports you into the mind of a Mayan 500 years ago. In ‘The Northman,’ Robert Eggers transports you into the mind of a Viking a thousand years ago. In ‘The Odyssey,’ Christopher Nolan transports you into the mind of a liberal woman in 2017.

Yes the Odyssey is an almost three thousand year old epic. And of course every movie is going to be an adaptation. But that doesn’t give anyone the right to change the source material into something it was not. As one cultural critic observed, this is precisely what makes Nolan’s adaptation of the Odyssey such an epic disappointment - “It’s like an atheist making a film about the Bible.”

Believe all Women (and Black Men)

One of the key sub-texts of the film is it’s feminist framing. This occurs in subtle ways such as none of the male ‘gods’ are personified, only the female ones. But also not so subtle ways such as when the witch Circe transforms Odysseus’ crew from pigs back into men she says, “Back, back to your disguises”. In other words, all men are pigs.

This misandrist reading of Homer is yet another betrayal of the original source material. Nolan presents Circe as a vulnerable victim who must use her magical powers for protection. But while most people will observe what Nolan is doing, just like me, they won’t have the energy or will to object to such a crass objectification.

Perhaps the greatest example of outrage fatigue of all though, involves the casting of Lupita Nyong’o as Helen of Troy. Whereas in one breath the left applauded the expected cultural representation which occurred in Disney’s live action remake of Moana, they ridiculed anyone as a right-wing ‘Chud’ who had a problem with the race swapping which occurred in Nolan’s Odyssey.

However, not only is it culturally insensitive, as well as historically inaccurate, to present Helen as a black woman, but Nolan also subverts the very reason why the Trojan war began in the first place. What’s more, he also portrays her with a subtle but noticeable mark on her face to suggest she was a victim of domestic violence.

But according to Christopher Nolan, the military conflict with Troy was not because of her beauty and subsequent adulterous affair with Paris, but rather the greed and duplicity of once again, powerful men.

So many memes have been made at Nyongo’s expense that no one simply has the energy to argue why this even deeper subversion is so wrong. Why is it only men in Nolan’s Odyssey who are guilty of wrongdoing and not also any of the women?

Surprisingly, hardly anyone is upset about the second character Nyongo plays in the Odyssey, Helen’s identical twin sister Clytemnestra. But in yet another egregious example of historical re-imagining, Nolan has Clytemnestra murdering her husband Agamemnon in revenge for sacrificing their daughter Iphigenia. (This was done to apparently appease the goddess Artemis and secure favourable winds for his ships to sail to Troy).

However, in Homer’s original epic, Agamemnon’s murder is achieved by Aegisthus, who had had a consensual affair with Clytemnestra while he was away fighting in Troy. Aegisthus then invites Agamemnon to a feast upon his return and, with Clytemnestra’s help, has him swiftly slain. But hey, let’s not let the truth get in the way of a woke story.

By the way, just because Nyongo’s screen time is limited doesn’t mean that her inclusion isn’t significant. Like a crack in the wall, often a subtext is just as effective in weakening the defences of one’s opponent as escorting an enormous wooden horse is through one’s front gate.

For those with eyes to see and ears to hear, every race on earth is present, all except of course anyone who’s actually Greek! It’s also why Nolan chose the African-American Travis Scott to play the bard at the start of the film. While everyone is distracted by his ridiculous futuristic armour, they have once again forgotten that it’s who’s inside the Hellenic batman suit which really counts. Because according to Nolan it’s only women and non-white men who are truly righteous and can therefore be trusted.

Sinon as the Lynch-Pin to the Story

All of which is to say, the real hero and only truly virtuous “male” in Nolan’s film is Sinon, a character who doesn’t even appear in Homer’s Odyssey and is played ironically, by the transgender actor Elliot Page. A biological woman playing the role of a man dressing up as a Greek warrior.

In keeping with Nolan’s film Inception, here we see the dream within a dream via a biological American woman pretending to be a Greek man. As risky as this is, someone has to say it - the emperor has no clothes! (or in this case, testicles).

For months people have been outraged by Nolan’s inexplicable insertion of the character Sinon into the story. So much so in fact, that for the first time ever a Nolan film was ‘review bombed’ with overwhelmingly negative reactions. Note, very few conservatives predicted the movie would financially flop, they simply expressed their online resistance to the tiresome woke agenda being thrust upon them.

I realise some will object that role of Sinon is also not very significant—much like the physique of Elliot Page—but the truth is, it’s not. Like a drop of poison in a glass of wine, Page’s feline figure frames Nolan’s entire story. Indeed, without the character of Sinon, his whole narrative arc, and associated woke messaging, would fall apart.

This is because Sinon is the lynch pin involving the fate of not only the protagonist Odysseus, but even the antagonist Antinous! In one of the most crucial scenes in the poem, Odysseus travels to Hades where he is supposed to speak with his departed mother, Agamemnon and especially Achilles. Nolan though gives to Sinon the privilege of mansplaining—yes I know, another irony—to Odysseus what needs to be done if he is to successfully return home from the underworld.

Nolan’s faux male soldier then is crucial to the plot. Sinon reproaches Odysseus for using him as a military pawn regarding the ruse involving the Trojan horse. (Nolan’s Sinon believed that was a genuine peace offering to the goddess Athena) At the same time, he also exposes Antinous’s cowardice and treachery, revealing to Odysseus that he was coerced into taking Antinous’s place in the Greek army.

Odysseus’ journey to Hades though, was supposed to reveal the error of pursuing of one’s own glory. However, according to Noalan, the fictional character of Sinon is presented as being both the true hero through her/his/their eternal victimhood.

Undermining the Central Theme

Both reproaches to Odysseus are complete fabrications and foreign to the original literary work. In particular, there are two important fabrications which Nolan commits regarding Sinon, a character whom Homer never even mentioned.

First, in the original Odyssey, after Odysseus tries to comfort Achilles in Hades by reminding him of the ‘glory’ he earned through his glorious death on the battlefield, the great warrior responds:

“Nay, seek not to speak soothingly to me of death, glorious Odysseus. I should choose, so I might live on earth, to serve as the hireling of another, of some portionless man whose livelihood was but small, rather than to be lord over all the dead that have perished.”

Most people will remember the actor Brad Pitt’s portrayal of Achilles in the 2004 blockbuster movie Troy and in particular how prominent the theme of personal glory was. However, whereas many believed glory was to be found in a heroic death, Homer inverts this and concludes that it’s better to a nobody and alive and a somebody who is dead. As wise King Solomon once wrote, “For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion.” (Ecc. 9:4).

The second fabrication Nolan commits involves the character of Sinon himself. When he does later appear in Virgil’s Aeneid, we’re told how he was a clever and deceitful trickster rather than an unsuspecting dupe, let alone political pawn:

So spoke Sinon, as artist in perjury, setting his ambush. And we believed him. He fooled us with well-staged weeping and ruses.

Rather than Sinon being deceived then, he was instead a willing agent involved in the deception and subsequent victory over the Trojans via the military stratagem of the wooden horse. For Nolan though, the character of Sinon is crucial to the development of his own subversive theme regarding the immorality of war and its closely connected accomplice, toxic masculinity.

This also explains why in Nolan’s version, Odysseus is perpetually plagued with intense psychological guilt and deep emotional shame because of his involvement in the Trojan wars as well as why he ultimately needs to return home. According to Nolan, the suitors—led by Antinous—must be slain because of Sinon’s betrayal as well as to atone for Odysseus’ numerous war crimes.

Whereas for Homer, home is where Odysseus truly belongs. Meaning and purpose is not to be found in the glory of the battlefield but in the peace and quiet of one’s ancestral homeland and family. This theme is actively undermined by Nolan when he has a Gujarati Indian actor Himesh Patel give the line, “We are the Greeks”. It’s not meant to be funny but said with the utmost gravity and seriousness.

The Gospel of Open-Borders

The real message of the movie according to the man himself can be summarised by what Nolan calls “Zeus’ Law”. This is also a subtle distortion and even perversion of the Greek concept of ‘Zenia’ regarding hospitality. In short, how one treats strangers is important because they could be a ‘god’ in human form.

The implication for foreign policy and especially as to how one treats migrants is not difficult to make. This is further reinforced though by the mention of the mysterious “People from the Sea” who are presented as some kind of existential threat to Bronze Age civilizations. However, in the film’s twist ending, Odysseus realizes that the Sea Peoples are in fact the Greeks themselves!

Perhaps this is also why we have the bizarre ending where Odysseus and Penelope happily sail off into the sunset. Apart from the issue of being once again on the open sea, which was the realm of Poseidon the god whom he had previously offended, just where exactly are they supposed to live?

In Homer’s version Odysseus is at peace when he returns home. His marriage bed is literally rooted into the very soil of his homeland. Whereas in Nolan’s edition, peace can only be found when white people go back to where they came from – wherever that might be. For to make atonement for his war crimes against humanity Nolan presents Odysseus as a king in self-pronounced exile.

However, there is nothing heroic or inspiring about such a decision. In Nolan’s worldview, Odysseus’ redemption is achieved by becoming a ‘nobody’ and relinquishing one’s privilege and power. In yet another ironic twist, the famous ‘nobody’ quip to the Cyclops is one of the most glaring—and for many people, outrageous—omissions in the entire film.

Not all War is Evil

Also latent within the belly of Nolan’s cinematic equine is the message that all war is evil. Nolan’s reframes the entire epic as a brutal, anti-war meditation on the emotional trauma and social degradation caused by armed conflict. Thus, instead of being a triumphant adventure, the film functions as a severe condemnation of the Trojan War, re Western imperialism.

Nolan does this in a number of key ways:

First through the PTSD and post-war disillusionment of Odysseus.

Second, through by reframing the victory achieved via the Trojan Horse as a cowardly and horrific betrayal of xenia, or Zeus’ Law of hospitality.

Third, through the speeches of female characters who condemn violence and especially the patriarchal systems that drive it.

Four, by stripping the Trojan War of any romanticized mythology. Odysseus even admits to Penelope that Helen’s elopement was merely a pretext for the conflict!

Five, by presenting the war scenes in a brutal and unromanticised way. Nolan includes the terrified screams as well as religious and humane atrocities committed against the men, women and children of Troy.

However, not all warfare is evil. And there even comes a time when it is a moral good in restraining human wickedness. All civilisations are built upon victories achieved through military action. Just ask the people of Iran right now who have been pleading for liberation or the veterans of WWII.

As the Bible itself acknowledges, there is a time for war as well as a time for peace (Ecc. 3:8). To contend otherwise is like accepting a gigantic wooden horse past the defences of your city...

The Demythologisation of Greek Religion

Whereas Greek religion was concerned with maintaining the cosmic divine order, Nolan makes the Odyssey about an individual seeking emotional healing from their own psychological trauma. But in so doing Nolan is thumbing his nose not only at the mythology integral to Greek religion but is also undermining the role of the supernatural.

Even the feminist academic Emily Wilson, whose translation of the Odyssey Nolan relied on for the film, has argued that the movie focuses too heavily on Odysseus’ guilt, trauma and shame rather than his heroic pursuit of glory, calling the portrayal “a modern, psychiatric reinterpretation of the ancient character”.

One particular aspect which I haven’t heard any commentator mention though, but is that which Homer himself would have found the most troubling, is the be-heading of Athena by Odysseus. To modern audiences this means basically nothing, but to an ancient Greek worshipper this would have been considered one of the greatest blasphemies and religious sacrileges one could commit.

It would be unthinkable for any god-fearing Greek in the ancient world to conceive of ever doing such a thing to the image they worshipped. Especially when the god in question was also the active divine agent believed to be responsible for one’s military success as was the case with Odysseus.

Not without significance, the posters promoting the film carried the tag-line, “Defy the gods”. In Nolan’s cinematic universe it’s not the gods who are in charge—did I mention how none of the male deities even make an appearance?—but the empathetic human emissaries of social justice.

Don’t be a Chump!

Imagine being a Trojan soldier standing at the gate of the walled city and seeing an enormous horse being brought in. According to Virgil, the character of Sinon claimed the horse was a special offering to the goddess Athena (Minerva) which had been specially constructed to atone for the theft of one of her sacred relics from Troy.

Sinon further warned the Trojans that if they damaged the gift then Athena would destroy the city. However, if they brought it inside their walls, then the favour of the gods would be upon then and Troy would ultimately conquer all of Greece.

Apparently a Trojan priest named Laocoön even suspected a trap and he famously warned the people, “I fear the Greeks, even those bearing gifts”. Then he threw a spear at the horse’s flank. However, almost immediately, two giant serpents emerged from the sea and killed him. The Trojans falsely interpreted this as a divine punishment for desecrating the sacred horse. But according to Homer, the reason the gods who sent the serpents was because they favoured the Greeks.

To any reader of the Odyssey, it was clearly a mistake to bring the “holy object” inside. And yet, almost three millennia later many are willing to make exactly the same mistake. A deadly woke worldview lies hidden within the belly of Nolan’s film. And yet people are enthusiastically celebrating it because they think it’s a sign of worldly success and even divine favour.

Nolan’s Odyssey will undoubtedly make a lot of money. Very few conservatives argued that it wouldn’t. But that is not the point. The issue is what will happen if you accept Nolan’s cinematic gift? Like Laoccon, I’d suggest that the message which Nolan is giving is not to trusted and should be left alone outside the gate.

Resisting Nolan’s Siren Song...

In my office at home I have a picture of John Waterhouse’s beautiful Ulysses and the Sirens. The original is found in the National Gallery of Victoria and I was so struck by the painting when I first saw it that I purchased a life-size print. For me it is a timeless reminder to be single-minded and not be distracted by the siren song of other voices—as seductive as they may be—seeking to distract me from returning home to heaven.

We need to re-learn the lesson which Odysseus and his men first did. Either fill your ears with wax and don’t see the movie. Or do what Odysseus did and prepare to be tempted in advance by fastening yourself to the mast of God’s truth. Either way, be a Christian and don’t be a chump by finding yourself having been taken ideologically captive.

By now, we’ve all heard the phrase “virtue signalling.” The term was popularised in a 2015 article published in The Spectator by British writer James Bartholomew. It refers to the public expression or defence of opinions, beliefs, or values, with the primary purpose of demonstrating one’s moral awareness, compassion, or social and political standing. More often than not, the performance itself is a substitute for practical action. It allows people to appear compassionate without having to make any meaningful sacrifices.

For that reason, the phrase is usually used critically. It suggests that someone is more interested in publicly displaying the “right” opinions than in practically addressing any of the so-called issues that are raised. Of course, those accused of virtue signalling insist otherwise. They argue they’re raising awareness, showing solidarity, or standing with the oppressed. In truth, however, virtue signalling is an inexpensive way to soothe a guilty conscience for a wasted life. They do little themselves, while demanding that everyone else do something.

But there’s a more obvious issue with those who frame themselves as champions of the oppressed classes in order to bolster their public image. If everyone already largely agrees that a cause is righteous, it takes little courage to affirm that position publicly. Moral courage has almost never been socially profitable. The truly oppressed of any age are opposed precisely because the wider culture has been persuaded that their mistreatment is entirely justified. Defending them therefore carries a high cost. Often, there is ridicule, exclusion, professional consequences, and sometimes even imprisonment or death.

This is why so much of modern-day virtue signalling has more in common with historical re-enactments. Rather than confronting the injustices of the present, where courage is necessary and the social cost real, many prefer to relive the moral victories of the past. They loudly and boldly champion causes which the culture has already reached a broad consensus on: opposition to slavery, racial discrimination, or the legal inequality of women. But the positions the “Social Justice Warriors” champion today require no sacrifice, because they are already socially rewarded. They just allow people to present themselves as the kind of heroes who’d have stood against yesterday’s injustices, without having to risk standing against today’s.

It should be obvious, really. If publicly supporting a cause earned you social admiration, career advancement, institutional approval, or social status, it’s worth asking whether the cause actually represents the marginalised or whether it’s become part of the accepted cultural establishment. History demonstrates that the unpopular victims of each age are rarely those receiving endorsements from governments, universities, corporations, celebrities, politicians, and the media. The truly oppressed are never identified by the number of powerful institutions publicly pledging their support.

True justice requires defending those who are oppressed, regardless of who they are or whether it’s socially profitable to do so. The Bible repeatedly commands the defence of the vulnerable and the pursuit of justice. For instance, Micah 6:8 states: “He has told you, O man, what is good; And what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God.”

And yet, one of the challenges of every age is correctly identifying who is the oppressed and who is the oppressor. History repeatedly shows us that those who hold power are often the quickest to present themselves as victims. They exploit emotions and use the language of suffering and injustice in an effort to justify their privileges, all while perpetuating the suffering of others.

This is where virtue signalling proves to be an oxymoronic performance. In the past, those who defended the genuinely marginalised or spoke against prevailing injustices were rarely, if ever, rewarded for it. They were ridiculed, ostracised, censored, imprisoned, or killed.

Of course, this doesn’t mean that every unpopular or wicked cause is, in fact, righteous, nor that every controversial figure is innocent or worth defending. It is simply to say that popular cultural consensus has never been a reliable measure of justice. So, the real question isn’t whether someone belongs to an approved victim class, but whether their basic dignity, freedom, and rights as human beings are being denied. Are they being treated differently from everybody else on the basis of some particular inherited status?

The real test of virtue is not standing with those whom society rewards you for supporting. It’s standing for truth and justice when doing so carries a cost.

So, if you want to know who the oppressed are in any given age, don’t look to approved causes and social trends. Look instead for those whose defence brings accusation and condemnation. More often than not, they are the people polite society tells you can never be defended.

The question is not, “Who receives the loudest expressions of solidarity?” but, “Who can be defended only at personal cost?” History suggests that the answer to that question is often far closer to the truly oppressed.

Somewhere this month, a Catholic family watched a church burn on the news and waited for someone in authority to do something — anything — that would make them feel it mattered. From their bishop, if anything came at all, they got a few lines about healing and dialogue. From their government, silence.

Multiply them by millions. The gap between what the faithful feel and what everyone charged with defending them is willing to say and do on their behalf is the real story — bigger than any single fire.

And the fires are neither rare nor small. Europe alone recorded more than two thousand anti-Christian attacks in a single year — churches vandalised, desecrated, burned, including the famous Notre Dame in Paris. The US bishops have logged over four hundred attacks on Catholic churches since 2020; in France, a Christian building is lost roughly every two weeks; in Canada, dozens have been burned to the ground, almost all by arson. Across the West it runs into the thousands, year after year.

What the ordinary believer cannot find anywhere is a single leader who sounds angry on her behalf or calling for any tangible action.

Canada’s entire arson wave has produced two convictions and not one serious prison term, while the Prime Minister called the anger “understandable” and a prominent activist leader called for more churches to be erased: “burn it all down.” And this same dynamic is repeated across Europe and the progressive leftist parts of the United States.

The same politics that casts Christianity as the villain of history is now escalating to complicity in these attacks — and, in some cases, openly urging them — while the rest of us are told to keep the tone civil and bipartisan and to ‘love thy neighbour’. Ask plainly what that civility has earned the Church, when progressive leftist policies treat a burning church as a grievance it understands and that its activists support.

The faithful can see what this is: anti-Christian hatred, from an ideology that has made their faith the designated oppressor. And they watch both their church leadership and their political statesmen decline to call it out, from fear of facing up to the cost of abandoning their comfortable bipartisan illusion. So the burning wounds them twice — once when the roof comes down, and again when the men sworn to protect them explain why nothing can be done.

This is why a twelfth-century king is suddenly on every feed. It is not bloodlust, whatever the critics say — it is passion and pride. Baldwin IV rode out at Montgisard at sixteen, deeply unwell, because he believed his people were worth defending and was prepared to sacrifice everything to do it — and when the day was won, he went home a hero. The people sharing his image are not all asking for a crusade. They are asking, in the emotive language the internet gives them, for one leader who is visibly proud of them and whom they can be proud of in return — who would put himself between them and the fire, and make a church worth defending again. They are grieving a leadership they have never had.

So ask the question that leadership never asks itself: who is inspired by its actions? Who walks out after listening to a diocesan statement, or a minister’s press conference, feeling prouder, braver, safer, inspired to be Christian? The answer is in the quiet emptying of his pews as congregations shrink; the politician offers thoughts and a task force. Both wonder where the young men went. They went because nothing was asked of them, and nothing was offered them to be proud of.

So what would King Baldwin do?

He would say out loud that these are his people and he will not stand for it. He would call out the people doing this without fear of being called names. He would attack the politicians who excuse it, rather than thank them for their partnership. He would treat the impunity as the emergency it is — fund the investigators the state will not, get the arsonists named in indictments, put them out of their jobs, and, where they are not citizens, deported; and throw the Church’s weight behind the representatives, prosecutors and judges who enforce the law, and against the ones who look away. He would stand in the burned-out nave and promise something taller and more beautiful in its place. And he would mobilise every angry, aimless young man watching his inheritance burn — to build, to campaign, to protest — and make him feel, for once, that his faith has a spine and he is not alone.

People do not follow press releases and bipartisanship. They follow someone prepared to sacrifice comfort for the survival of the faith.

The nostalgia for Baldwin is not a longing for war. It is a longing for leadership.