I must admit to having a complicated relationship with Dinesh D’Souza’s documentaries.
As much as I have enjoyed several of them, I find that they falter in a few ways: They often lack staying power, offering little incentive to return to them after the moment has passed; they are too self-referential — filtering every issue through D’Souza’s own perspective; and they are preoccupied with energizing sympathetic audiences rather than persuading skeptical ones.
Where the film is likely to receive its fiercest pushback is on the subject of eschatology — the theology of the end times.
This last flaw is especially frustrating. Catering to the conservative base is easy, but with D’Souza’s resources and backing, his films could be far sharper — and far more enduring — if they focused on timeless themes rather than re-litigating the 2020 election or attacking whoever happens to be running for president that year.
It was with this in mind that I went into D’Souza’s newest effort, "The Dragon’s Prophecy." A loose adaptation of the Jonathan Cahn book of the same name, the Angel Studios production examines the fallout of the October 7 terrorist attacks and the subsequent two-year war between Israel and Hamas (which effectively ended with a ceasefire on October 10).
Sharpness, at least, is not a problem this time. The film arrives at a harrowing moment. Tucker Carlson is condemning “Christian Zionism” as heresy; New York City has just elected a mayor who wants to arrest the prime minister of Israel; and bipartisan resentment toward American Jews hasn’t been this pronounced since Pat Buchanan implicitly blamed them for supporting the Gulf War.
Anti-Zionism — and its adjacent anti-Semitism — is enjoying a fashionable resurgence, while support for the Israeli government sits at an all-time low.
D’Souza confronts these trends head-on. He calls out Carlson — as well as the far-left bloc of House Democrats known as "the Squad" — by name, even integrating footage from Carlson’s combative June interview with Ted Cruz. The result is a forthright defense of Israel, one that bluntly characterizes Hamas as rapists, murderers, and terrorists — and depicts the group's atrocities in unflinching detail, including phone calls in which militants boast to their parents about their killings.
It’s a grisly watch. The film includes insurgents shooting dogs and civilians, and it lingers on the aftermath of violence. But the shock is intentional. As Ambassador Mike Huckabee tells D’Souza, the war is “an eternal battle between good and evil,” with Israel on the side of the angels and Hamas aligned with “the Dragon.”
Amid this devastation, D’Souza wanders the Holy Land and laments that Israel is a place where “nothing is ever solved or resolved,” a region with “no solutions and no idea what the problems even are.” Yet his moral clarity never wavers. He even calls the construction of the Islamic Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount “the true colonialism.”
His mission is to locate meaning in the conflict. To that end, he speaks with Jewish victims, archeologists uncovering evidence of ancient Israelite history, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who uses the occasion to swat at his American critics and to praise Donald Trump.
Where the film is likely to receive its fiercest pushback is on the subject of eschatology — the theology of the end times.
Because D’Souza’s target audience is predominantly Christian, the most vocal critics may be anti-dispensationalists, whose views have become increasingly common among Catholics and mainline Protestants. They correctly note that dispensationalism is a 19th-century American theological development and that the popular notion of a “rapture” is relatively recent.
As the Protestant theologian Brian Mattson writes, “In the grand historical sweep of Christian theology, Dispensationalism is a new arrival.” He explains that its architects argued that salvation unfolds across distinct dispensations, meaning that God’s promises to Israel remain intact for ethnic Jews even as the New Testament opens salvation to Gentiles. “God has two separate ‘tracks’ for the salvation of humanity,” he writes. Thus the national promises to Israel persist in perpetuity.
This is the framework behind the "Left Behind" franchise — 16 books and five films — and it places the modern state of Israel at the center of Revelation in a way that traditional Christian readings do not.
There are legitimate biblical critiques of dispensationalism, just as there are bad-faith motives for attacking it. Mattson notes that many Gen Z “America First” Catholic converts now regard Israel as an unnecessary “foreign entanglement,” while others deploy “heresy” language as a thin veil for anti-Semitism.
RELATED: Haunting play 'October 7' lets Hamas terror survivors speak
Still, D’Souza’s film is thoroughly dispensationalist. Israel’s present turmoil is portrayed as evidence that the end times are near, that evil is intensifying, and that God is making Himself more visible through signs and miracles. The fate of Israel, in this reading, is inseparable from the fate of the world.
The film’s second half is a series of interviews with Israeli archeologists who discuss evidence for figures like King David and Pontius Pilate, treating their discoveries as confirmations of Scripture. When combined with commentary from a Messianic Jew such as Jonathan Cahn, the Israeli-Gaza conflict becomes a mystical drama between cosmic good and cosmic evil.
That argument rests on a contested theological system. However one responds to the film’s defense of Israel, it must be filtered through the angular lenses of American dispensationalism — a hurdle many viewers may be unwilling to clear.
There are smaller criticisms as well: The film appears to lean heavily on AI-generated imagery, which raises its own questions about execution. But in the main, the film is preaching to the broad American center — those who support Israel without belonging to either extreme.
Despite these theological quirks, the film ultimately does something I have long wished D’Souza’s documentaries would do: It speaks clearly and with conviction about an issue that possesses lasting moral weight.
Israel will remain a defining struggle for decades. October 7 is only one chapter of that broader conflict. In taking it on, D’Souza presents a moral argument to a conservative audience that is increasingly drifting from him. Whether one agrees with his conclusions or not, he is operating on the level of enduring questions of faith rather than the transitory skirmishes of electoral politics. For once, he isn’t simply preaching to the choir.
Since the 1990s, federal agencies and the media have fed Americans a steady diet of panic about shadowy “right-wing militias” — usually ex-military guys obsessed with guns and ready to wage war against the government at a moment’s notice.
The panic went into overdrive after January 6, 2021. But now, in a staggering act of projection, the threat they’ve spent decades warning about has arrived — only it’s coming from the radical left. And still, the feds insist on looking the wrong way.
Antifa cells are evolving. They’re abandoning mass protest tactics for small-cell terror and direct action.
Despite years of breathless rhetoric, the supposed wave of “right-wing terrorism” never materialized. Jan. 6 was a chaotic security failure, not an insurrection. Most of the defendants were unarmed. Many walked through open rope lines. And yet the regime has used that day to smear millions of Americans and justify years of political prosecutions.
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) recently called Jan. 6 “the culmination of a sustained effort to undermine our democracy.” But what sustained effort? Four years later, no mass violence, no uprisings. Nothing at all.
Now, compare that to what we’re seeing from the radical left.
After months of threatening Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, Antifa terrorists launched a coordinated attack on an ICE facility in Alvarado, Texas. This wasn’t a protest gone wrong. This was a planned ambush.
At least 11 people, dressed in black tactical gear, carried out the assault. First, they fired fireworks at the building, vandalized security cameras, and sprayed graffiti, including “ICE pig,” “traitor,” and other profanities on vehicles. The goal was to draw agents outside.
When two unarmed officers responded, one assailant opened fire from nearby woods, shooting a police officer in the neck. Another attacker, wearing a green mask, sprayed 20 to 30 rounds at the agents.
Authorities arrested 11 suspects. Ten were charged with attempted murder of a federal officer and firearms charges. One was charged with obstruction of justice. Police recovered AR-style rifles (one jammed), body armor, Kevlar vests, helmets, tactical gloves, radios, and Faraday bags to block phone signals.
Andy Ngo linked the attackers to an Antifa cell in Dallas-Fort Worth. It’s a miracle they failed. But what should alarm us is their level of funding, coordination, and willingness to kill.
On Thursday, during a raid in Camarillo, California, ICE agents again came under fire. There's a pattern forming, and it isn’t isolated.
The same ideology — radical leftism, anti-Americanism, Marxism, anti-Zionism — is fueling a wave of political violence that dwarfs anything seen on the right. Consider the past eight months:
Not all these incidents were organized by the same groups. But together, they show a dangerous trend: increasing sophistication, coordination, and lethality among left-wing militants.
This isn’t just protest culture gone too far. It’s a movement gearing up for war. They’re training. They’re arming. They’re radicalizing online and in activist spaces. And while conservatives have long viewed themselves as the only side armed, that’s no longer true.
Groups like the Socialist Rifle Association and the John Brown Gun Club are producing radicals like Benjamin Song, a former Marine and the suspected ringleader of the July 4 ICE ambush.
Antifa cells are evolving. They’re abandoning mass protest tactics for small-cell terror and direct action.
Step one: Designate Antifa and its associated groups as domestic terrorist organizations. Trace their funding. Investigate every affiliated cell, especially those connected to the Party for Socialism and Liberation.
Step two: Ramp up law enforcement. Federal agents need to respond to ICE attacks with overwhelming force. Nonlethal crowd control won’t cut it.
Step three: Empower states. Legislatures should pass laws imposing serious penalties on those who interfere with immigration enforcement. If the feds won’t punish them, the states must.
Step four: Citizens must get serious. Stay armed. Stay trained. Sheriffs should follow the lead of Pinal County’s Mark Lamb and form citizen posses. It’s past time for more robust local defense.
For years, the corporate media and activist left warned you about “armed insurrectionists.” They told you the militia movement was coming. They said America would face domestic political terror.
Well, they were right.
But it wasn’t coming from where they said. It was coming from them.
A petition creeps close to the language of anti-Zionists who have used the defense of free speech as a cover to call for Israel's annihilation.
www.theblaze.com
www.theblaze.com
thefederalist.com