Kamala Harris’ loss was devastating only for those who supported her, but if her campaign truly wanted to win, it probably should have made some different choices. Her VP pick, Tim Walz, was one of those choices — though he doesn’t seem to know it himself. In Walz’s first television interview since their defeat in the presidential election, he claimed to be “a little surprised” that he and Harris lost to Donald Trump. “It felt like at the rallies, at the things I was going to, the shops I was going in, that the momentum was going our way,” the Minnesota governor told KSTP, one of his state’s news outlets, in an interview. “So yeah, I was a little surprised." “I thought we had a positive message, and I thought the country was ready for that.” Mike Cernovich, on the other hand, was well aware that it might have been one of the campaign's biggest missteps. “Tim Walz triggers me psychologically,” Cernovich tells James Poulos of “Zero Hour.” “They picked him because they thought that white men would say, ‘He’s one of us’ not realizing that he’s the archetypal blowhard coach that we all hated, and he had some weird position of authority over us that was unearned.” “In a hierarchical structure among men, he would never have earned it. Put him in a room of 10 men, this guy is not running things,” he continues, adding, “You guys thought that he’s somebody that we would look up to because you’re so in the DEI world, but he is someone that we would loathe.” Cernovich believes that Walz is more of a “reply guy” than anything else, noting that he’s the type that feels “like they have to say something just to say it.” Want more from James Poulos?To enjoy more of James's visionary commentary on politics, tech, ideas, and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Let’s talk about what’s going on in the airspace over New Jersey. Because on this night before Christmas, what to my wondering eyes did appear but possibly Iranian-guided, Chinese-financed drones that are leaving far more than visions of sugarplums dancing in my head. Right off the bat, I think we’ve got an epistemological problem here. Raise your hand if you would simply take at face value any explanation the current United States government would give you about this. I don't know what they could possibly tell us that would create calm amid the cold civil war they started and perpetuated with scamdemics and transgendering our kids. Our current worldview clash governs everything, even when literal UFOs hover in the sky. What’s more likely? That the media will uncover the truth behind this situation or that they are complicit in it? Considering the sketchy and manipulative filter through which we must view reality today, I believe we have four options to explain what in the Donder and Blitzen is going on here. 1. It’s the option presented by New Jersey Rep. Jeff Van Drew, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, saying a source has told him that essentially we are allowing Iran to operate in complete violation of our airspace in full view of the American people via a drone mothership somewhere over the Atlantic. Let’s call it “the cowardice option.” 2. Brian Bergen, a member of the New Jersey state legislature and a former Army Apache helicopter pilot, revealed that an attaché from the Department of Defense told him they have no idea where the drones are coming from but are not concerned about it. That’s “the complete and total incompetence option.” 3. Our friend and colleague at Blaze Media, Glenn Beck’s chief researcher and former Defense Department intelligence analyst Jason Buttrill, gave us this chestnut to consider on X: — (@) Congress holds a hearing where Reproduction Vehicles (craft that has been retrofitted or copied from UAPs) are disclosed. Russia unveils some new super weapon (hypersonic) in Ukraine. It's touted as unstoppable. Craft starts showing up all over American skies. The U.S. claims they don't know what they are ... but they’re not a threat. Riiiight. The only way authorities would be able to say that is if they WERE TOLD to say that. This is similar to when the B2 was first unveiled. We’re being desensitized to a new technology. They're getting ready to use this tech in actual military applications all over the world. This is a both a warning to countries like Russia and China, as well as a heads up to the American people on what to expect in the near future. Where did we get the technology? I won't speculate. Who knows ... but probably not from Kansas. That’s the “We are conducting high-level psyop theater in our own airspace in order to send a very provocative message to the rest of the planet and desensitize the American people to a level of technology that they don’t have yet” option — also known as “the COVID option.” 4. All that’s left after the above is "the supernatural option." So what should we be making of this in a world now filled with people who think health insurance CEOs absolutely deserve to be killed in cold blood on a public sidewalk? Now elevate that lethal mania to drone warfare and who knows when it is your turn to have justice served to you “Hunger Games” style? The situation reminds me of the show “The Mysterious Benedict Society,” which dovetails nicely with Buttrill’s view. The story centers on a manufactured concept called “the emergency,” delivered through new technology in newspapers and other media via “the whisperer.” Its purpose is to incite public panic over fake issues while diverting attention from real problems. Sound familiar? The story originated as a book and was later adapted into a two-season series streamed on — wait for it — Disney Plus. Buttrill suggests this is akin to Pinocchio turning into a real boy, as many on the political right seem to be letting their guard down during this post-election honeymoon phase. Whatever the case, this feels nefarious, like implanting a chip in your brain to modify behavior. The media, driven by contempt for everyday people they seek to control, act as perpetual crisis actors. So what’s more likely? That they will uncover the truth behind this situation, or that they are complicit in it? So mama in her kerchief may be intent on settling in for a long winter’s nap as she waits for jolly old St. Nick to come, but he may need to outfit his sleigh this year with air-to-air missiles if that bag of presents is going to find its way down the chimney this time around. Happy Christmas to all, and to all ... pass the ammunition!

The destructive tenure of Stellantis CEO Carlos Tavares has come to an abrupt but welcome end. Tavares, who had led the auto manufacturer since the 2021 merger that unified brands such as Fiat, Dodge, Jeep, Peugeot, Citroën, and Alfa Romeo, leaves a company grappling with severe challenges. Stellantis faces a sales slump, inventory surpluses, widespread layoffs, labor unrest, a dealer backlash, and a troubled push toward electric vehicles — all symptoms of a deepening crisis.Just 10 months ago, Stellantis announced a $39 million compensation package for Tavares, making him the highest-paid auto executive in the world. This marked a 56% increase from his previous earnings. When questioned about his pay, Tavares told reporters, “Ninety percent of my salary is determined by the results of the company, so this proves that the company's results are apparently not too bad.”Tavares failed to serve his company, shareholders, customers, or franchised dealers. Instead, he served two masters: himself and the globalist eco-bureaucracy.U.S. auto dealers, angered by the company’s struggles, have directly linked its crisis to Tavares’ shoddy leadership. They accuse him of making short-sighted decisions that inflicted long-term damage on the company while ensuring significant financial gains for himself in the short term.Under Tavares’ leadership, Dodge, Chrysler, and Jeep dealers in the United States have struggled with an overwhelming surplus of unsold inventory. Dealers have criticized the inventory as overpriced compared to competitors, compounded by a stale lineup with new models still years away. The company discontinued popular gasoline-powered vehicles, leaving gaps in the product lineup. Rather than lowering prices or offering incentives to clear dealer lots, Stellantis chose to cut production and lay off employees, worsening the situation.The company’s third-quarter financial results this year were disastrous, marking a near-unprecedented decline outside of an economic crisis or major disaster. Global vehicle sales dropped 20% compared to the same period in 2023 while U.S. sales fell 36%, plummeting from 470,000 units to fewer than 300,000. Revenue plunged 27% year over year. In response, Stellantis slashed production, delivering 170,000 fewer units to dealers yet failing to resolve the glut of aging inventory still clogging dealer lots.The EV bubble burstsStellantis’ third-quarter sales collapse this year is even more striking when compared to the second quarter. Revenue in Q3 fell to $36 billion, a sharp 23% decline from the $47 billion reported in Q2. Sales effectively collapsed during the summer, signaling a rapid downturn for the automaker.One key factor behind Stellantis’ limited and outdated product lineup was Tavares’ unwavering commitment to an electric vehicle future. Several high-volume, gasoline-powered models were discontinued to make way for electric replacements that are still years away.For example, the Chrysler 300 was phased out with plans for an electric successor in 2026, leaving dealers without a comparable product to sell in the interim. Similarly, the Dodge Charger and Challenger were discontinued in 2023 to make room for a future electric Charger, further shrinking the lineup. With the EV transition faltering, dealers now face an uncertain future and a glaring lack of viable products.Amid this upheaval, Stellantis maintained luxury car pricing, all while working to slash labor costs by shifting production and labor costs to low-wage workers outside of Europe and the United States. There have been near constant announcements of layoffs in the past year, including that of 400 engineers at Stellantis’ U.S. headquarters who were let go and replaced by engineers in Brazil and Mexico at dramatically lower salaries.As Europe’s electric vehicle bubble burst and consumers increasingly rejected EVs, especially with the decline of government incentives, Stellantis dealers called for relief from the strict EV mandates imposed on the industry. But Tavares refused to intervene.In fact, Tavares took the opposite approach. While other automakers, including Volkswagen and Renault, urged European regulators to relax emissions mandates meant to drive the EV transition, Tavares redoubled Stellantis’ commitment to the unobtainable goals.“Electrification is a high-cost transition, and only those with the financial strength and vision to adapt quickly will survive in this environment,” he said, signaling his belief that the company could outlast its competitors.With Carlos Tavares unwilling to fight for Stellantis as the EV bubble burst, its European dealers were forced to take matters into their own hands. They appealed directly to the European Commission for relief from the impending 2025 emissions restrictions.Dealers revolt, shareholders sufferMeanwhile, in the United States, Stellantis’ National Dealer Council released a scathing open letter to Tavares just weeks earlier. The letter aimed to “sound an alarm” to investors, employees, and Stellantis board members about the CEO’s “reckless short-term decision making.” The council accused Tavares of causing the “rapid degradation” of the Dodge, Ram, Chrysler, and Jeep brands and overseeing a significant collapse in market share.For over two years now, the U.S. Stellantis National Dealer Council has been sounding this alarm to your U.S. executive team, warning them that the course you had set for Stellantis in the U.S. was going to be a disaster in the long run. A disaster not just for us, but for everyone involved — and now, that disaster has arrived. In 2023, you engineered a record year of profitability for Stellantis, earning you the title of the highest-compensated automotive CEO. You personally earned a record amount of almost forty million dollars that year. Unfortunately, the engineering and structuring of that year have led us to exactly where we told your executives we would be today. The bill has come due for the decisions that you made to engineer those profits in 2023, and your attempt at a soft landing on the backs of your employees, your dealers, and your suppliers is frankly just wrong. We did not create this problem, the federal government did not create this problem, the UAW did not create this problem, and your employees did not create this problem — you created this problem.With Tavares’ departure, Stellantis has an opportunity to begin a rescue effort, though at this stage, it may be more of a salvage operation.Glenn Beck recently wrote about the growing wave of anti-institutional anger, warning for years that it could erupt into chaos. Tavares’ extraordinary self-awarded compensation, approved by the board despite actions that weakened a global industrial giant, will only fuel that rage.Tavares failed to serve his company, shareholders, customers, or franchised dealers. Instead, he served two masters: himself and the globalist eco-bureaucracy that seems content to watch Stellantis collapse as a manufacturer of gasoline-powered vehicles.To maintain both civil and economic order, investors and corporate boards must take responsibility for preventing further destruction of institutions like Stellantis. Greedy and self-serving leaders, such as Carlos Tavares, cannot be allowed to undermine companies at the expense of all other stakeholders.

Donald Trump made some serious promises to the American people, and while some question his ability to keep them, Stu Burguiere of “Stu Does America” believes he’ll make good on these promises — specifically regarding mass deportations. “I think they’ll go pretty big,” Burguiere says. “He was re-elected largely, partially, based on his border stance and how poorly the border went under Joe Biden. And so he’s going to be, I think pretty, aggressive on this.” And Tom Homan is only confirming Stu’s belief. The incoming border czar told residents of Chicago this week that mass deportations would start in the Windy City, whose mayor, Brandon Johnson, has said he plans to protect illegal immigrants from federal agents. “Chicago’s in trouble because your mayor sucks, and your governor sucks,” Homan said, not mincing words. “If he doesn’t want to help,” he continued, singling out Johnson, “get the hell out of the way.” “Now, the way the immigration law is set up, and this is a little confusing and at times makes things difficult, cities cannot get in the way. Brandon Johnson is a moron, and he cannot get in the way, not legally at least. What he can do is just not help,” Burguiere explains. “If you happen to arrest someone for, let’s say theft, you could say, ‘Hey, by the way, not only do we have you on theft, but we also have you on this border violation. We’re going to send you to the authorities for that.’ They could easily participate in that type of situation, and that’s really what the Trump administration is asking for,” he continues. “Instead, they’re just getting opposition from all over the place, even though places like New York want mass deportations to occur. New York voters want the state to support Trump deportations,” he adds, noting that a Siena College poll shows that 54% of respondents say the state should support any Trump administration efforts to deport immigrants living there illegally. According to the poll, only 35% of respondents oppose the plan. “I will remind you, that’s not a national poll. That’s a poll of the state of New York that voted for Kamala Harris by, I think, 12 points. So that is a remarkable thing,” Burguiere says, adding, “This is what the people want.” Want more from Stu?To enjoy more of Stu's lethal wit, wisdom, and mockery, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Bullets spilled out of the gun like loose teeth in a nightmare. I squeezed the trigger again: nothing. Then I performed a “tap-rack-bang” — the gun equivalent of blowing into a Nintendo cartridge. Nothing. Every time I racked the slide, more 9mm rounds tumbled out of the Walther PDP Compact 4. I squeezed the trigger again. More spillage. More teeth. The range at night was disorienting, a real equalizer. Darkness could downgrade even the most skilled daytime shooters. I hadn’t expected to dominate my first nighttime shooting competition, but this was ridiculous. Under the supermoon It was a windy 55 degrees on the firing line under the glow of a supermoon — the last of 2024. It was my first time at the range after sunset, and there I was, fumbling with a gun like some kind of purple-haired vegan barista. The moonlight made everything feel dreamlike, glassy, and strange. It was dark. And apparently, I had loaded the rounds into the magazine backward, something I’d like to believe I could never do in daylight. This wasn’t just my first night shoot; it was my first shooting competition of any kind, even as an observer. While I’ve gone to many ranges over the years, I’ve only made it a habit in the past three months. The event was hosted by the committee members of my local sportsman's club and the owner of Blackbush Armory, a high-end gun shop specializing in tactical and custom firearms and gear, including all the iconic firearms of history and lore. Typically, the club doesn’t allow shooting when it's dark, but this “Whiteout Shoot” was an exception. I shot last, so I had time to observe the walkthroughs for each stage and watch the 11 other shooters. Their spread of gear was magnificent — thousands of dollars’ worth of rifles and pistols and optics and cases and vests and ammo, all laid out like tiny metal fortresses. They were ready for any scenario, but not arrogant about it; happy to help anyone who had shown up less prepared. Multiple times, guys offered me equipment, advice, and encouragement. I’d heard about the event from my friend, a gun collector who had previously introduced me to the joy of Henry repeating rifles, and my dad, who didn’t compete. Initially, we’d planned to cover a Sig Sauer event in Oklahoma City, but this local shoot was a more interesting alternative. At the very least, it was a unique way to spend a Saturday night, well worth the $10 entry fee. Stage 1: Pistol The course of fire for Stage 1 included three scenarios. First, shoot an array of steel plates horizontally, then shuffle left and knock out vertical targets. Then eject your magazine and fire your last shot at the bull's-eye plate on the left. The faster, the better. Scores were based on both speed and accuracy. After each shooter finished, the safety officer rattled off numbers to the scorekeepers in the bunker. The range at night was disorienting, a real equalizer. Darkness could downgrade even the most skilled daytime shooters. “Just focus on getting out there,” said my friend, handing me a replacement pistol. “And even if you don’t hit a single target, you’ll be all the more successful the next time you hit one. That'll double your accuracy. And most of all, enjoy the big goofy smile you’ll have.” Miss, miss, miss, miss, miss — PING! Around the fire Here we were, a group of heavily armed men, soft-voiced and jovial. The atmosphere was calm, yet focused — a level of tranquility you’d expect at a monastery. We could just as easily have been gathered around a fire in the shadows of a cave, millions of years ago, equipped with the same ancient instincts of survival and camaraderie. Civilizations need strong men and women on the local level. And by gathering at the gun range on a Saturday night, we expressed faith in the strength of our neighbors. Iron sharpens iron. Trust is enacted, not invoked — actions, not words. Because here’s a truth about gun culture: This joy is rooted in discipline and protocol. Safety protocol was strictly enforced. This was a cold range, meaning all firearms had to remain unloaded unless the competitor was under the direction of a range officer. The rest of the time, you stayed behind the red line, away from your weapons. The event organizers had even notified the sheriff that we’d be shooting at night, in case anyone reported gunshots. Odds are, nobody did — most people were still blasting fireworks every night to celebrate Trump’s landslide victory nine days earlier. The youngest competitor was 16, shooting alongside his grandfather. The rest of us spread across every decade in between them. Among the group were a former pilot, an entrepreneur, a sheriff, and a professional drummer. Stage 2: Rifle Rifles make more sense to me than handguns. They feel natural. So I was less nervous heading into Stage 2, although a vague static lingered in my mind. The gun shop owner, serving as safety officer, was calm and encouraging. He told me about “sweeping,” accidentally pointing the rifle uprange toward the guys. “Keep your muzzle forward,” he said, adding humbly that he’d once been disqualified for this exact mistake. “Make ready.” Magazine in. Bolt back. BEEP. In Stage 2, you began crouched behind an obstacle in a surrender position (hands raised, rifle slung on your back). Lean left around the barricade, flip the flashlight on, and fire two shots at the first cardboard target. Then scoot right to the next target. To my relief, the motions felt natural. The anxiety dissipated. Next, lean right, two shots, then move to the final target — a hostage situation. The “hostage” was a cardboard cutout nicknamed Macaulay Culkin being manhandled by a “terrorist,” a featureless paper cutout. The challenge was to hit the bad guy without blasting Macaulay to Neverland. Lost in the cosmos Heading into the final stage, everyone had talked a lot about the cosmos. It felt like the moon was within reach, glorified by a rainbow-like crown. Low-flying propeller planes puttered toward the local airport, just northwest of the hilltop casino. Everything around us could be charted by its trajectory and velocity. Guns have only been around for the past millennium or so. But their lineage runs much deeper, and political actors often ignore this reality. Use of weapons preceded the discovery of fire. Early humans were strapped with spears, clubs, and hammers. This military mindset accelerated civilization and led to political order. Humanity has always advanced at the pace of its weapons. Some tools spread by innovation, others by necessity or force. Guns were the latter. Societies without them had no choice but to adapt or surrender. The invention of the ship is also the invention of the shipwreck. Guns deliver godlike power. So our handling of them has to be grounded in clear-cut morality. Gun culture is misunderstood in this respect. It’s not primarily a political movement; it’s a communion with the past, a metric of the technological present. Some collectors find meaning in cars or cameras. Guns are different. They aren’t just artifacts; they’re instruments of life and death, protection and apocalypse. Stage 3: Rifle and pistol The final stage required both rifle and pistol. We moved to the skeet-shooting area on the other side of the range. The entire field was volcanic, crowded with the bright orange clay discs that trap and skeet shooters substitute for birds. Each step disrupted the rubble. “That’s the crunch of shattered pigeons,” said the kind extrovert who, like many of the guys, had been giving me advice and encouragement. “Maybe I’ll just do the rifle part,” I suggested. “I don’t feel great about the pistol part.” “Don’t,” said the kind extrovert. “It’s worth it to challenge yourself. Pistols are work; rifles are fun. The real competition is with yourself.” The course of fire involved two scenarios, ending with a target shaped like a goat. The ricochet sparks of bullets against steel lit up the dark. And a red light flashed any time you hit a target. When it was my turn, I surprised myself by hitting all but one pistol target. The lads cheered. Then I strode left. Crouched, grabbed the rifle, readied to fire, and — nothing. The night ended with a rifle jam — fitting, given how my evening started. But this time, it was mechanical, not ignorance. “That’s a major malfunction,” said the safety officer. Then he helped fix it nonchalantly. Ping-ping. Ping. Now for the finale. I took a breath, fired. The shot grazed the goat, but I ended the night with a goofy smile that matched my friend’s prediction. By the end of the competition, what began as three distinct groups had coalesced into a single community. Moments like these are a crucial reminder for an era trapped in a permanent state of revolution: Any civilized society is armed to the teeth.

Hollywood sequels rarely achieve the magic of the original, but “Gladiator II” comes close. Except for the familiar populist framework of a lone man taking on “the system” against all odds, the echoes to the original are sufficiently distant that the new movie feels fresh and original. Plus, it turns out that Ridley Scott’s blockbuster is a timely, if unwitting, metaphor for Donald Trump’s own sequel, which is off to a better start than his original. This time he won the popular vote and his transition is smoother, most recently featuring Trump’s triumphant trip to Paris, Kash Patel’s appointment to lead the FBI, and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s obeisant visit to Mar-a-Lago. Someday, Hollywood will understand what most Americans already see: Donald Trump is a gladiator for the dream that is America. This is what Trump’s “revenge” looks like. Compared to a "Gladiator"-inspired populist revolt, it’s both genteel and more satisfying: What red-blooded American viewer doesn’t enjoy seeing Trump arm-wrestling with Macron again and making a nanny-state bully like Trudeau heel, or seeing him appoint bold populists like Patel, Robert Kennedy Jr., and Tulsi Gabbard to lead, and turn upside down, politicized government agencies that sought to do him in? Ancient Rome has always been both an inspiration and a cautionary tale for America’s leaders. George Washington modeled on Cincinnatus by relinquishing his military power to enhance civilian government, and he frequently quoted the Roman senator Cato, who sacrificed his life in support of the Roman Republic. The Founders chose an eagle as our national symbol — the symbol of the Roman god Jupiter used to represent Roman power. Both John Adams and his son John Quincy Adams idolized the Roman orator Cicero. More ominously, Abraham Lincoln’s stage-actor assassin John Wilkes Booth played the role of Mark Antony in an 1864 New York City performance of “Julius Caesar,” with his brother Edwin playing Brutus. And as he leaped from the president’s box in Ford’s Theater, Booth shouted “Sic semper tyrannis,” the words attributed to Brutus as he killed Ceasar. Over the course of our nation’s history, comparisons between the United States and ancient Rome have focused on the fall of Rome as a caution for America. The comparisons range from financial mismanagement to far-flung and overextended military commitments. Ridley Scott got it wrong So Roman lessons for the U.S. are nothing new. Ridley Scott, who produced and directed “Gladiator II,” drew parallels between his movie and contemporary American politics in an interview with the Hollywood Reporter, but — this is fun! — he’s spectacularly wrong about both. Scott told the Hollywood Reporter that he modeled the heavy in “Gladiator II” — a creepy, Machiavellian opportunist whom Denzel Washington brings to life — on Donald Trump. “He evolved into a very rich merchant selling s**t to the Roman armies — food, oil, wine, cloth, weapons, everything,” Scott said. “He maybe had a million men spread around Europe. So he was a billionaire at the time, so why wouldn’t he [have ambitions toward the throne]? ‘Why not me?’ He’s also a gangster – very close to Trump. A clever gangster. He creates chaos, and from chaos he can evolve.” Is anyone surprised that a Hollywood liberal misses the point about Trump in his own movie? Ridley Scott has it precisely backward: The Trump parallel is not the scheming creature of the Roman political swamp, but the hero, a prince who would not bow to those who sought to crush and kill him. It’s Trump’s rivals, scheming, duplicitous power-seekers seeking to whip up hate, who are whispering in the ear of a non compos mentis leader. And what ultimately drove the young prince to become the populist leader of Rome? As he approaches the inevitable climactic death match, the gladiator himself reprises the core idea from the first film: “The dream that was Rome.” It’s a fragile dream of a republic that will only be achieved by taking back power from corrupt, weak leaders and scheming politicians. ‘The best revenge’ The gladiator’s speech about Rome applies to contemporary America. It’s about recapturing the American dream and refreshing government of, by, and for the forgotten people — instead of the powerful — the very ideas that bring cheers to a Trump rally. With that in mind, consider the words ascribed to Marcus Aurelius — words that the film’s hero and villain both quote: “The best revenge is to be unlike him who performed the injury” or “the best revenge is not to be like your enemy.” Trump’s many enemies, the folks whipping up fear that he will use government power to go after political enemies as the Democrats did to him, misunderstand MAGA “revenge,” as Trump made clear again during his long Sunday interview with Kristen Welker on “Meet the Press.” Government institutions that have been infused with politics and corrupted away from their purpose are not reformed by changing the politics but by purging the politics. Trump’s revenge is to be different, to empower allies to reveal and reform corruption, and to reduce the power of government over the people instead of expanding it. Nothing will crush his haters more than being a great president. “I’m really looking to make our country successful,” Trump told Kristen Welker. “I’m not looking to go back into the past. I’m looking to make our country successful. Retribution will be through success. If we can make this country successful, that would be my greatest, that would be such a great achievement. Bring it back.” Trump’s 2024 victory against all the forces arrayed against him is just the opening act of his sequel. Now the fun really begins. Someday, Hollywood will understand what most Americans already see: Donald Trump is a gladiator for the dream that is America. Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.

After five years of renovation and repair following the devastating fire in 2019, the bells of Notre Dame are tolling once again. Tourists can now visit the iconic Gothic cathedral, and the few practicing Catholics in Paris can once again attend Mass there. President-elect Donald Trump was among those present during its reopening weekend. This is undoubtedly a moment of celebration for believers and nonbelievers alike. When news of the fire broke, many commentators, including myself, saw it not only as the destruction of a historic monument but also as a reflection of the cultural decline it symbolized. For millennia, France and the West upheld the true faith, fostered beauty, and pushed the boundaries of human achievement. Today, they have descended into mediocrity, marked by government entitlements, cultural erosion, and mass consumerism. If people in the 21st century want to rebuild monuments like the Notre Dame cathedral, they need to start rebuilding the very spirit of these monuments in their souls. Yet like the resurrected Christ, Notre Dame has re-emerged triumphant. It now draws even larger crowds, who appreciate it more deeply after nearly losing it. If the fire symbolized the West’s decline, then surely the cathedral's reopening must symbolize the West’s restoration — right? As appealing as that narrative may be, we have little evidence to support it. In fact, a cursory look at the current state of Christianity in the West reveals a situation worse than it was five years ago. In France, a news channel faced severe penalties for factually reporting that abortion is the leading cause of death worldwide. Across the channel, England has legalized assisted suicide. Meanwhile, in the United States, the Supreme Court has been forced to weigh in on whether states may outlaw genital mutilation and hormone treatments for minors. During this time, Pope Francis and his cardinals have spent years debating the meaning of synodality without resolution. Rather than finding false solace in Notre Dame’s reopening, it would be more prudent to re-examine the cathedral’s fire with the benefit of hindsight. For those who remember, the cause of the fire was initially unclear. French authorities attributed it to a random accident, while some “truthers” speculated it was an act of arson by a radical Muslim. Their suspicion stemmed from reports of Islamists celebrating the burning of Notre Dame and a wave of church-burnings across France at the time. Elites vs. non-elites From Emmanuel Macron’s perspective and that of the French government, blaming a Muslim fanatic for the fire was nearly as convenient as attributing it to stray cigarette embers. This explanation aligned with an anti-immigration narrative that blamed many of the West’s problems on unassimilated Muslim migrants. Framing the fire as a threat to Christian civilization posed by Muslim newcomers conveniently avoided challenging the political and economic status quo. Recent history casts doubt on this framing. When examining all the details, the fire symbolized not a global clash between Christian and Muslim civilizations but an ongoing struggle between elites and non-elites. If the fire had been solely a matter of Muslim non-Westerners resisting French culture, the French populace would have responded decisively. They might have voted for politicians and policies aimed at blocking and deporting North African and Middle Eastern migrants. And they might have re-evaluated their spiritual commitments, recognizing the importance of attending church and rejecting the hollow propaganda of French secular nationalism, known as “laïcité.” Instead, the French remain as secular as ever, if not more so due to COVID-19 closures. They continue to vote for liberal politicians like Macron, who welcome ever more immigrants. This context makes it plausible that the fire was either directly or indirectly caused by French authorities seeking to gain sympathy, secure billions of euros for maintaining famous tourist sites, and distract the population to retain power. It’s reasonable to assume the reopening of Notre Dame will serve a similar purpose. Without belief, everything shrinks Those pointing to the recent collapse of the French legislature as evidence of a populist takeover and the end of elite secular dominance should temper their optimism. “Put not your trust in princes,” as the psalmist says. As I wrote a few years ago, the leaders of French populism are essentially no different from the French elites, aside from their opposition to immigration. If burning down a famous Gothic cathedral served their cause and helped them gain power, they would exploit the opportunity just as willingly. Christians, populist conservatives, and self-proclaimed guardians of Western civilization should take a new lesson from the fire and reconstruction of Notre Dame Cathedral: a genuine revival of Christendom and Western civilization demands nothing less than a complete spiritual conversion. It’s not enough to mourn the potential loss of a famous building. Humanity must refocus on first things. The ultimate reason Notre Dame burned is that the West abandoned belief — and everyone knows it. Without belief, everything shrinks, and the transcendence that enables the creation of beautiful churches and advanced societies vanishes. As a result, many in France and across the West now embody Nietzsche’s “Last Man” — oblivious dullards who seek only “little pleasures” and stupidly blink at the idea of pursuing anything meaningful or great. If people in the 21st century want to rebuild monuments like the Notre Dame cathedral, they need to start rebuilding the very spirit of these monuments in their souls.

Bible sales are booming. New sales data from Circana BookScan shows that Bible sales have increased 22% through October of this year compared to the same period last year, the Wall Street Journal reported. In the first 10 months of the year, Americans purchased 13.7 million Bibles, which means Bible sales are on track to surpass last year's 14.2 million. Here's why that matters: Over the same period of time, print book sales increased less than 1%. The fact that Bible sales are outpacing other print books at a significant rate raises an important question: What is driving more Americans to purchase Bibles? Even more important: The WSJ reported that first-time buyers are contributing significantly to the Bible-buying surge. Why, at this specific moment in time, are non-Christian Americans turning to the Bible? The answer, according to the Wall Street Journal, is that more Americans are looking to the Word of God for hope in a chaotic and disordered world — and they're finding answers in the Bible. "People are experiencing anxiety themselves, or they’re worried for their children and grandchildren. ... It’s related to artificial intelligence, election cycles…and all of that feeds a desire for assurance that we’re going to be OK," Jeff Crosby, president of the Evangelical Christian Publishers Association, told WSJ. "They’re looking for hope with the world the way it is, and the Bible is what they’re reaching for," explained Bethany Martin, a Christian bookstore manager, of first-time Bible buyers. The Bible gives a very specific picture of what the good life is — and it's diametrically opposed to the 'good life' that modern Western culture promotes. But it's deeper than anxiety or hope-searching. I think many Americans, especially younger ones, are grappling with the rotten fruit of our postmodern, progressive, and liberal culture in which every person gets to be, essentially, their own God. This is what American culture says today: You are the designer of your own life. You choose your identity. You can be whomever or whatever you want, and your desires are not bound by the limits of reality or truth. In fact, there is no truth at all. The only truth that exists is what you decide internally for yourself, "your truth." Relativism, of course, is not limited our cultural philosophy. Over the last several generations, morality has become completely subjective. No longer does our culture believe in transcendent moral principles. Today, the prevailing moral framework can be summarized in the abortion rallying cry "my body, my choice." With the rotten fruit all around us — broken families, addiction, the mental health epidemic, hyper-individualism, the culture of death, consumerism, tribalism, a loss of the sacred, busyness, etc. — it seems that Americans are turning to the word of God as the antidote to an anti-human way of life. That's because the Bible tells a much different story. In the Bible, the Creator God is God of all creation — everything that exists. The Bible says there is objective truth, and God is the arbiter of it. The Bible says that humans have a specific role and function in the world, and deviations from that vocation lead to chaos and destruction. The Bible, moreover, gives specific moral guidelines for humans; deviations from those principles, which Jesus upholds, lead to chaos and destruction. Overall, the Bible gives a very specific picture of what the good life is — and it's diametrically opposed to the "good life" that modern Western culture promotes. In other words: The liberal cultural experiment is failing. Americans, then, are turning to the Bible and God because they've learned that whatever bill of goods modern culture sells them, it doesn't lead to the good life. Now they're searching for true life — and they know where to find it.

This weekend, I saw a person on X bemoaning the fact that Christians believe so many supernatural things. This guy praised multiple ethical teachings of Christianity and then framed Christianity as something that would be much more palatable if we weren’t so insistent on the miracles.The miracles can seem like a stumbling block in the minds of those who are committed to a closed universe, a universe in which there is no God at work. Some people prefer a more deistic approach to things: If there is a God, he is remote because he withdrew after he set everything in motion. From that standpoint, natural laws are the way things are and the way things will always be.Getting rid of the miraculous might be an appealing strategy to some people, because — from a secular view — non-miraculous teachings and stories are easier to believe. But to excise the miraculous from Christianity is to end up with something other than Christianity. This tactic didn’t work when Thomas Jefferson purged miracles from the four Gospels and retained the moral teachings of Jesus (a project that became known as the Jefferson Bible). According to Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:12-20, the teachings of Christianity rest upon the truth of a historical bodily resurrection of Jesus. This miracle, however, follows many previous ones.The miraculous pervades the stories of Scripture. The Israelites flee from the Egyptians through standing walls of water. The Lord feeds his people for decades with manna on the ground every morning. Moses strikes a rock from which water flows for the thirsty people. The walls of Jericho fall after the Israelites followed specific marching instructions and a musical cue. Elijah calls down fire from heaven, and later he is taken to heaven apart from an earthly death. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego emerged from a fiery furnace unharmed and un-singed.If Jesus were conceived in the way everyone else has been conceived, then the Gospel writers are telling falsehoods.On and on we could go. And then we come to the New Testament, where the ministries of Jesus and the apostles (in the four Gospels and the book of Acts) brim with the miraculous. John called Jesus’ miracles “signs,” and in John 20:30 he said, “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book.” So yes, the Gospel writers tell of Jesus’ miracles, but the ones we read about are not even exhaustive.My emphasis on the miraculous to this point is so that we can remind ourselves of the following truth: Christians believe in the virginal conception of Jesus. Because we are a people of the Book, we should submit to and receive whatever God has made known about his will and ways in the world. And from an angelic messenger, a virgin named Mary learned of God’s miraculous plan to accomplish the promised redemption through a promised son.Gabriel told Mary, “Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus” (Luke 1:31). Furthermore, he told her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy — the Son of God” (Luke 1:35).Gabriel’s words are the language of the miraculous. The power of God will be at work, and Mary will conceive in her womb. This truth about the conception of Jesus is not expendable. If Jesus were conceived in the way everyone else has been conceived, then the Gospel writers are telling falsehoods. And if Jesus were conceived in the way everyone else has been conceived, then his human nature has been corrupted by sin. If Jesus were corrupted by sin, then he wouldn’t be able to bring salvation because he himself would need salvation.Don’t shirk away from the miraculous in Christianity. Don’t be embarrassed by it. Believe it, sing it, teach it, and defend it. Again: Christians believe in the virginal conception of Jesus.Through the miracle of the incarnation, the Word became flesh. The eternal entered time. The exalted one humbled himself. Mary held the one by whom and for whom all things were made.J.I. Packer writes of the great mystery that is found in the doctrine of “the Christmas message of Incarnation,” saying that, “The really staggering Christian claim is that Jesus of Nazareth was God made man — that the second person of the Godhead became the 'second man' (1 Corinthians 15:47), determining human destiny, the second representative head of the race, and that he took humanity without loss of deity, so that Jesus of Nazareth was as truly and fully divine as he was human."Staggering indeed! But that’s the impact of the miraculous. The notion of God’s power is not some ho-hum thing. God’s power is jaw-dropping, awe-inducing, and praise-prompting. Mary herself said, “My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior” (Luke 1:46-47). That’s exactly the right response.Through the incarnation of the Son of God, the light of salvation dawned upon the world. Rather than being some extraneous issue, the virginal conception of Jesus is integral to what we Christians confess about Jesus. He is the Son of God, with truly divine and human natures. He was born without sin and lived without sin, so that he could die beneath our sin. Now, raised and ascended, the incarnate Son is our perfect mediator and sin-pardoning savior.Don’t shirk away from the miraculous in Christianity. Don’t be embarrassed by it. Believe it, sing it, teach it, and defend it. Christians believe in the virginal conception of Jesus and many other miracles as well. And it should make us, like Mary, magnify the Lord and rejoice in God our savior.This essay was originally published at Dr. Mitchell Chase's Substack, "Biblical Theology."

Mary the mother of Jesus was remarkable for one very important reason: God chose her (and Joseph) to raise the Son of God."Mary," the new Netflix movie, is not remarkable. For a (heavenly) host of reasons.My hopes were dashed when Mary announces somewhat defiantly, looking straight into the camera: 'You may think you know my story. Trust me. You don’t.'First, let’s get this straight. Mary was not born holier than anyone else. She was just a normal girl with a heart to please the Lord, as evidenced by her reaction to the angel Gabriel giving her the news that would change her life forever. From this reaction, we can deduce that her family was likely devout. They had arranged an engagement for her, as was culturally customary. And her fiancé, Joseph, proved himself worthy by his kind intentions toward her even when he thought she had betrayed him.You can read this whole narrative in Luke 1:26-38 and Matthew 1:18-25. And I suggest you do, because that’s the real story. Netflix could have made a beautiful movie telling that story — it’s full of drama and mystery and fear and hurt and love — but director D.J. Caruso, along with executive producer (and televangelist) Joel Osteen, chose to tell an entirely different story. An unbiblical story.And it’s not even a good unbiblical story.Unbiblical non-epicFilm scripts based on the Bible run the gamut from straight scripture (like 2003’s "The Gospel of John"), to fanciful depictions that spin off so wildly from the Bible that the message and meaning of the biblical text is completely twisted (looking at you, Darren Aronofsky, for messing with "Noah"). Somewhere in the middle there I’d put "The Chosen," Dallas Jenkins’ multiple-season series on the life of Jesus. It’s firmly rooted in scripture, but Jenkins attempts to flesh out the story (with often-but-not-always historical and cultural context) to help us imagine what it must have been like for regular people who encountered Jesus Christ. Much of the time these efforts are successful; sometimes not so much.I was hoping that "Mary" would be like a good episode of "The Chosen," but alas my hopes were dashed almost from the film’s first moments, when Mary announces somewhat defiantly, looking straight into the camera: “You may think you know my story. Trust me. You don’t.” If a film billing itself as an “epic biblical” tale tells us from square one that it’s going to tell us the “real” story, it is no longer biblical (and probably not epic either).Isn't that special?The entire premise of this film is the entirely imagined idea that Mary was no humble teenage girl but was special from before she was born. This is evidenced by the angel Gabriel visiting both her parents to inform them that their childlessness was about to end with a special daughter who would belong to God. As a child, flocks of butterflies follow her around, and people stare at her, sensing ... something. Her parents eventually fill her in on her status and tearfully deliver her to the temple to serve God as part of some weird underage girl temple helper group, which I am fairly certain was not a thing (there’s certainly no biblical mention of girls being dropped off to live in the temple, and it doesn’t seem like it would be culturally acceptable). Plus, the outfits the girls wear look a bit like "The Handmaid’s Tale," so it’s a bit creepy.Reality check: Mary did not know she was chosen until it was time for her to know. Her family didn’t know until she told them, and we can imagine that was a difficult situation.Again, that might have made for some powerful film storytelling, if the filmmaker could have just stuck to the scripture instead of the script.Speaking of the script, it’s packed with foreshadowing of elements from the life of Christ, including a disturbing scene where wicked King Herod presses a crown of thorns into the Jewish high priest’s head, blinding him (after which Herod stares at young Mary, also sensing ... something).Eventually, they get around to the real story, when the angel Gabriel visits Mary, but they only stay with the Bible briefly before the film transitions to an action movie. Crowds of Jews who hate the Romans are shown rioting and also trying to stone Mary for her out-of-wedlock pregnancy. Joseph is a full-on action hero who bravely fights his way out of this situation and a few others, eventually getting Mary to Bethlehem. In the film, they went not to comply with the Roman census (the real reason they went there — see Luke 2:1-5) but because he “has family there.”Hollywood hallucinationsAnd this is where the movie’s plotline unravels completely. They make their way through the crowded streets of Bethlehem looking for a place to stay. Why? He just said he had family there. Mary then asks Joseph if all the people are there because of the census, but he tells her ominously, “No — this is something else.” And then he finds out what that something else is, when a woman tells him: Everyone’s here because the Messiah is to be born here! And indeed later scenes after Jesus’ birth appear to show crowds of people coming to see Mary and the baby.Mary was a devout “nobody” — exactly the kind of person God delights in using (and blessing). And almost nobody was reading the Old Testament scriptures looking for the Messiah. Nobody was in Bethlehem expecting to be witness to the birth. Angels told a group of raggedy shepherds, and wise men (who did study the scriptures) followed the star. There were no crowds. Most people, and certainly the religious authorities, were caught up in their conflict with the oppressive governing Romans, jockeying for position and obsessed with internal politics. Most were blind to the Messiah when he arrived on the scene 30 years later; they were certainly not interested in a humble teenage girl from Nazareth at this time.Osteen-approved"Mary" continues to spiral into nonsense. Herod is enraged about a new king of the Jews being born and decrees all the baby boys in Bethlehem be killed (that really happened). He then asks them to bring back alive the one baby who is the actual problem baby (that didn’t happen, and why would it? In real life, he thought he was taking care of the problem by killing all the babies). Also, please don’t fall into the giant plot pothole where huge crowds come to visit Mary and the baby but the murderous Roman soldiers could not find that same baby.We haven’t even gotten to Joseph’s last action-hero scene where he fights off a platoon of fully armed Romans who are trying to set fire to them while Mary kicks out a window, action-hero style, and baby Jesus gets tossed down from a roof in a basket. There's also some silly, self-empowerment dialogue, like when Elizabeth tells Mary to “trust the strength inside her,” which is simply not what a devout Jewish woman in first-century Israel would tell anyone to trust in. (It does sound suspiciously like the kind of thing televangelists like Osteen might say, though.)But for all the foolishness of the action scenes, the real damage of this movie is perpetuating the myth that Mary was anything other than a normal human being. She was chosen by God for a divinely appointed task, and he gifted her with everything she needed to fulfill that to his glory. But angels did not announce her coming, and butterflies didn’t follow her around. She was born in sin like every other human, and she was saved by his grace through her faith, like every other saint. Like all of us who call him Lord.