Why Non-Woke Indie Video Games Like Clair Obscur Are Going Gangbusters
Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 presages the fall of woke gaming titans in its own indie gaming moment because it refused to bow to leftist ideology.Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 presages the fall of woke gaming titans in its own indie gaming moment because it refused to bow to leftist ideology.If AI isn’t built for freedom, it will be programmed for control
Once the domain of science fiction, artificial intelligence now shapes the foundations of modern life. It governs how we access information, interact with institutions, and connect with one another. No longer just a tool, AI is becoming infrastructure — an embedded force with the potential to either safeguard our liberty or quietly dismantle it.
In a deeply divided political climate, it is rare to find an issue that unites Americans across ideological lines. But when it comes to AI, something extraordinary is happening: Americans agree that these systems must be designed to protect our most basic rights.
Voters from both parties recognize that AI must be built to reflect the values that make us free.
A new Rasmussen poll reveals that 77% of likely voters, including 80% of Republicans and 77% of Democrats, support laws that would require developers and tech companies to design AI systems to uphold constitutional rights such as freedom of speech and freedom of religious expression. Such a consensus is practically unheard of in today’s political climate.
The same poll found that more than 70% of voters are concerned about the growing role of AI in our economy and society. And that concern isn’t limited to any one party: 74% of Democrats and 70% of Republicans say they are “very” or “somewhat concerned.”
Americans are watching the AI revolution unfold, and they’re sending a clear message: If we’re going to let these systems shape our future, they must be governed by the same principles that have preserved freedom for generations.
Why it matters now
That concern is more than hypothetical. We are already seeing the consequences of AI systems that reflect narrow ideological agendas rather than broad constitutional values.
Google’s Gemini AI made headlines last year when it produced historically inaccurate images of black Founding Fathers and Asian Nazi soldiers. This wasn’t a technical glitch. It was the direct result of ideological programming that prioritized “diversity” over truth.
In China, the DeepSeek AI model was trained to avoid any criticism of the Chinese Communist Party. Ask it about the Tiananmen Square massacre, and it refuses to give you an answer at all. When models are trained to serve power rather than seek truth, they become tools of suppression.
If left unchecked, agenda-driven AI systems in the United States could soon shape what news we see, what content is amplified — or buried — on social media, and what opinions are allowed in public discourse, thereby conforming society to its pre-programmed ideals.
Biased AI systems could even influence public policy debates by skewing public opinion toward "solutions" that optimize for social or environmental justice goals. These constitutionally unaligned AI systems may quietly reshape society with complete disregard for liberty, consent, and due process.
Regulation for freedom’s sake
Some conservatives bristle at the word “regulation,” and rightly so. But what we're talking about here isn’t micromanagement or bureaucratic control. It’s the same kind of constraint our Founders placed on government power: constitutional guardrails that prevent abuse and preserve freedom.
When AI is unbound by those principles, it doesn’t become neutral — it becomes ideological. It doesn’t protect liberty; it calculates outcomes. And in doing so, it can rationalize censorship, coercion, and discrimination, all in the name of “progress.”
RELATED: Eyes everywhere: The AI surveillance state looms
This is why Americans are right to demand action now. The window for shaping AI's trajectory is still open, but it won’t remain open forever. As these systems become more advanced and more embedded in our institutions, retrofitting them to respect liberty will become harder, not easier.
Don’t let the opportunity slip away
We are living through a rare moment of political clarity. Voters from both parties recognize that AI must be built to reflect the values that make us free. They want systems to protect speech, not suppress it. They want AI to respect human conscience, not override it. They want AI to serve the people, not manage them.
This is not a partisan issue. It is a moral one. And it’s an opportunity we must seize before the future is decided for us.
AI doesn’t have to be our master. But it must be taught to serve what makes us free.
What happens when you tell a philosopher ‘No’
We need more philosophers to resign from their university posts.
Graham Parsons, a philosophy professor at West Point, resigned from his tenured position in protest. Good for him. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth responded bluntly: “You will not be missed.” The question is, what exactly was Parsons’ “principled stand” — and should others follow his lead? I think they should, though not necessarily for the reasons one might expect. If more professors who insist on injecting gender ideology into the curriculum refused to teach, we might finally begin to salvage the American university.
Professors like Parsons saw themselves as soldiers in the struggle for social justice, fighting racism and oppression. Now they’re being asked to face an uncomfortable reality.
So, why did Parsons quit? In his own words: “I cannot tolerate these changes, which prevent me from doing my job responsibly. I am ashamed to be associated with the academy in its current form.” He accuses West Point of “failing to provide an adequate education for the cadets” under current leadership. That’s a serious charge. Parsons blames policies linked to Trump and Hegseth for undermining what he views as essential to a proper military education.
But what does he actually mean by “adequate education”? What does he believe West Point no longer teaches? That’s the real question — and one worth examining closely.
Parsons explains his position in the New York Times: “Whatever you think about various controversial ideas — Mr. Hegseth’s memo cited critical race theory and gender ideology — students should engage with them and debate their merits rather than be told they are too dangerous even to be contemplated.”
There it is. Parsons frames the issue as a crackdown on academic freedom, where professors no longer have permission to address controversial topics or challenge prevailing orthodoxy. Educators, he argues, must now parrot the government’s message and abandon real critical inquiry. He adds that “uncritically asserting that [America] is ‘the most powerful force for good in human history’ is not something an educator does.”
But Parsons isn’t just teaching anywhere — he’s at West Point. His objection isn’t a minor complaint about classroom nuance. It amounts to a rejection of teaching American greatness and a defense of gender theory and critical race theory as serious intellectual frameworks. He calls the academy “uncritical,” but what he really objects to is any attempt to affirm America’s moral legacy. In practice, Parsons sees the affirmation of the United States as inherently disqualifying.
The result? Criticizing CRT gets framed as dogma, while embracing it becomes the default. Rather than weigh arguments, educators must now accept gender ideology and race theory as truth — and sideline any defense of the country’s founding principles.
Parsons does offer specific examples of the curriculum changes he opposes. He claims West Point interpreted directives from Trump and Hegseth not just as a rejection of critical race theory and intersectionality, but as a broader ban on using race and gender as organizing principles in the curriculum.
RELATED: Pride over preparedness: How LGBTQ+ activism is weakening our forces
Parsons says department heads ordered a review of syllabi and forced faculty to revise them. “West Point scrapped two history courses — ‘Topics in Gender History’ and ‘Race, Ethnicity, Nation’ — and an English course, ‘Power and Difference,’” he writes. The academy eliminated the sociology major and shut down a black history project. Department leaders also told professors to remove readings by James Baldwin, Toni Morrison, Alice Walker, and other minority authors.
He then describes how these directives affected his own classroom. “One of my supervisors ordered professors to get rid of readings on white supremacy in Western ethical theory and feminist approaches to ethics in ‘Philosophy and Ethical Reasoning,’ a course I direct that is required for all cadets,” Parsons writes. He even claims the West Point debate team was barred from arguing certain positions in an upcoming competition.
These details offer a clearer picture of his true grievance. Parsons didn’t resign over routine administrative changes. He stepped down because he could no longer teach what he believes: that white supremacy and feminist critiques of ethics are essential to understanding just war theory — a subject he has written about. He wants to use critical theory to criticize America, but he won’t subject critical theory itself to scrutiny.
Parsons demands that others question everything — except the assumptions behind his own beliefs. He’s like Descartes, but with highly selective skepticism.
In one of his articles, Parsons writes, “War theorists should be much more concerned with the gender and war literature and find common ground with feminists who have treated the problem of the political standing of soldiers as a philosophical priority.” This isn’t a neutral invitation to critical inquiry — it’s ideological advocacy. Parsons seems to think his view is correct and wants his students to adopt it. He’s not interested in weighing all perspectives; he’s advancing a particular dogma.
West Point, by contrast, has begun restoring a classical standard of education. Instructors are expected to equip students to identify flawed arguments and refute them. Professors must demonstrate why certain ideas fall short — and train cadets to do the same.
Parsons wants us to believe he resigned because he could no longer teach students how to think critically. He suggests the academy is censoring dissent. On the surface, that sounds like a position many academics might support. But his resignation tells a different story. It wasn’t about open inquiry — it was about losing the ability to promote his ideology without challenge.
Let me explain what it’s like to be a conservative inside a university. I’ve been told to revise my curriculum to fit a “decolonized” version of philosophy. At Arizona State University, I was the only professor who spoke up and said that crossed the line. Where were my leftist colleagues who now applaud Graham Parsons? Where were all the philosophers who claim to care about examining every perspective? For the past two decades, philosophy departments have resembled Socratic dialogues where only one voice gets to speak.
In truth, most professors only raise objections when institutional changes threaten their own deeply held beliefs. When administrators impose leftist ideology in the classroom, faculty members who share that ideology rarely object. They don’t see it as dogma — they see it as truth. They call it justice, a necessary correction to history. But when directives come from a conservative administration, they suddenly call it censorship and resign in protest.
This creates a profound dilemma for professors like Parsons. They saw themselves as soldiers in the struggle for social justice, fighting racism and oppression. Now they’re being asked to face an uncomfortable reality: They may have perpetuated the very racial essentialism they once condemned. For years, they operated within a system that marginalized conservatives — just look at the partisan breakdown in university faculties. That mirror reflects something they can’t bear to see.
They became what they claimed to hate.
It is time we restored the American university to the pursuit of truth and wisdom.
Here’s my final prediction: The immediate response from these professors will be to ask, “But who gets to say what is true or wise?” And of course, that’s the most telling response of all.
That’s critical theory talking.
Philosophy professor, know thyself.
David Brooks says Trump buried virtue. He’s ignoring the real killer.
New York Times columnist David Brooks’ recent essay in the Atlantic mourned the corrosion of America’s moral fabric. Naturally, Donald Trump is to blame.
Trump’s “narcissistic nihilism,” Brooks argues, is driven by a single philosophy: “Morality is for suckers.” Christian virtues are for the weak. Nietzschean pagan values of power, courage, and glory are for winners. And although many in Trump’s administration “have crosses on their chest,” they harbor “Nietzsche in their heart.” This “deadly cocktail” has transformed America into an entity unrecognizable from the “force for tremendous good” that, according to Brooks, was laid in its coffin on January 20, 2025.
Trump’s appeal to many wasn’t that he embodied virtue. Rather, it was that he promised to protect what remained of the institutions that made virtue possible.
Brooks isn’t the first to hurl such accusations against the president, though, admittedly, he does so in a manner that tickles my philosophical fancy. America’s moral decline has been an issue of concern long before Trump took office.
But is Trump — or any single political leader — really to blame?
Politics follows culture
Like many veterans of the political class, Brooks puts too much faith in institutions. Both parties cling to the comforting illusion that culture flows downstream from politics. Spend enough time inside the D.C. bubble, and even sincere conservatives start to believe that electing the “right” people or passing the “right” laws can do more than govern — that politics can redeem souls from moral collapse.
But pretending policy carries no moral weight is equally foolish. Ask anyone who’s lived under a truly corrupt regime. Still, culture shapes politics more than Washington bureaucrats care to admit.
Diagnosing America’s cultural decline requires more than scolding a single president or passing a bill. It means examining the social landscape that produced such politics in the first place. To understand Washington, we must first look to the soul of the voters who send their leaders there.
Yes, speaking of a national “soul” risks painting in broad strokes at the expense of nuance. Even Brooks would likely concede this much. Americans are desperately reaching for moral touchstones that the culture once upheld. Those touchstones — faith, family, tradition — have been torn down by the very ideologues Trump was elected to oppose.
Up from disillusionment
Brooks concedes a sliver of the truth, admitting that the left has built “a stifling orthodoxy that stamped out dissent.” But his diagnosis barely touches the depth of America’s moral confusion.
More than 40 years ago, Alasdair MacIntyre warned in “After Virtue” that modern society had gutted the moral framework needed to make moral language coherent. Today, we still invoke that language — justice, dignity, meaning — but with no shared foundation beneath it. Efforts to rebuild those foundations now face open hostility.
When public figures like Jordan Peterson face censure for reviving moral guidance once common in homes, churches, and civic life, it reveals something darker. Americans have lost access to the moral raw materials required to build a meaningful life.
Trump’s appeal never rested on personal virtue. It rested on his willingness to defend the institutions that make virtue possible. For millions of voters, he stood as a bulwark against moral collapse — not a saint but a protector of sacred ground. That’s what won him the loyalty of Americans disillusioned by the left’s assault on the moral structures they once relied upon.
The government’s job isn’t to redeem souls. It’s to safeguard the conditions under which people can pursue goodness, truth, and a flourishing life. That means defending the cultural space where moral frameworks can take root — and keeping vandals from tearing it apart.
Brooks calls this “narcissistic nihilism.” In reality, it’s something far rarer: hope — the hope that virtue can still grow in the soil that remains.
New Ohio Law Deems Marriage A ’Controversial Belief’ Not To Be Endorsed By Universities
Universities are permitted to circumvent the ban if it will ‘directly impact the institution's funding or mission.’The ‘propositional nation’ myth crumbles under real-world tests
Americans elected Donald Trump because they were tired of being despised by their own leaders. The real estate billionaire has his flaws, but at a time when politicians left and right were calling the country sexist, racist, lazy, and entitled, Trump called on Americans to Make America Great Again.
Now, as Trump’s second term begins with an impressive start, most of his supporters feel relieved to have a president who loves the country back in office. However, his early success raises larger questions. Greatness is tied to what Aristotle called telos — the ultimate purpose or end. To make America great, we must first answer the defining question of our time: Who are we?
If conservatives retreat from this debate out of cowardice, they will find themselves living in a world shaped by their ideological opponents.
Trump’s election marked a clear rejection of several ideas about national identity. Americans do not want to be “global citizens.” They want a distinct and sovereign nation. They do not want to live in a multicultural patchwork of segmented communities speaking different languages and celebrating different identities.
Americans reject the idea of acting as the world’s police force, sacrificing their sons and national resources to impose a global order that places their own country last. They do not want the United States to function as an office park or an economic zone. Instead of maximizing arbitrary economic measures like gross domestic product, they want a government that prioritizes the well-being of its people.
The American people are tired of leaders who belittle them for wanting a real nation — one that values its citizens above abstract economic statistics or globalist ideals. While Americans have clearly rejected progressive visions of identity, the question remains: Is there a unifying identity they can embrace?
An unrecognizable world
Rejecting multiculturalism, globalism, and economic essentialism is not enough. To make America great, conservatives and right-wing leaders must present an alternative identity — one that unites the nation and gives it a clear purpose.
This realization unsettles many conservatives, who have been conditioned to avoid discussions of identity for fear of being labeled extremists. That fear is understandable. Identity is powerful; it can inspire both great and terrible actions. It should not be taken lightly. However, conservatives cannot afford to abandon this conversation to Democrats and the political left. The question Who are we? will be answered — either by those willing to engage or by those who wish to redefine America entirely.
If conservatives retreat from this debate out of cowardice, they will find themselves living in a world shaped by their ideological opponents.
Is America merely a dream — an unattainable goal toward which the nation is always striving? Is it a set of ideas that anyone from anywhere can adopt and embrace? For decades, conservatives have promoted the idea of a “propositional nation” — one built on adherence to a set of principles rather than shared culture or heritage. With the failure of the multicultural globalist vision, many on the right now seek to return to this framework.
The problem is that this definition does not hold up to scrutiny.
The Liberia test
If America is merely an idea — a collection of abstract principles that anyone can adopt — then any society should be able to replicate those ideas and achieve the same results. There would be no need for immigrants to physically come to the United States or integrate with its people, because the location and the population would be irrelevant — only the principles would matter.
Yet history suggests otherwise. Liberia, for example, was founded as an African republic for freed slaves and freeborn black Americans. Its constitution mirrored the United States’ system, incorporating separation of powers, checks and balances, and a Bill of Rights. On paper, Liberia should have thrived under the same principles.
But reality tells a different story. Despite adopting America’s founding framework, Liberia has experienced persistent corruption and instability, ranking among the most corrupt nations in the world. Its struggles challenge the core assumptions of the propositional nation and raise a critical question: If America is just an idea, why can’t it be easily replicated?
The idea of a propositional nation falls apart when applied to domestic politics in the United States. The argument suggests that anyone who believes in America’s founding principles should be welcomed as a citizen. This assertion is rarely followed to its logical conclusion, however.
Consider Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), a Somali immigrant serving in Congress who frequently criticizes the United States. Omar has repeatedly described the country that granted her asylum as racist and oppressive. She often addresses her supporters in Somali and has pledged to prioritize the interests of Somali immigrants — and, depending on the translation, Somalia itself.
Media reports have suggested that Omar’s second husband was actually her brother, allegedly part of an immigration fraud scheme. Despite this, there has been no serious effort to remove her from office or to revoke her citizenship.
Who will enforce the idea?
If America’s identity is based solely on adherence to its founding principles, Omar’s open disdain for those principles should disqualify her from political leadership. Yet even suggesting denaturalization for her alleged immigration fraud — let alone her rejection of American values — would prompt accusations of racism or fascism, even from many conservatives.
No one who promotes the idea of a propositional nation seriously intends to enforce it. Doing so would require a totalitarian state where citizenship depends on ideological conformity. Such a system would resemble actual fascism far more than the bogeyman that progressives like to conjure.
So if America is not a proposition, what is it? What defines it as a nation? The same factors that have shaped nations throughout human history: shared language, history, heritage, traditions, religion, and culture.
In “Who Are We?” Harvard professor Samuel Huntington — far from a right-wing radical — argued that America’s core identity is rooted in the Anglo-Protestant tradition. While Huntington, as a man of the left, did not advocate restricting American identity to Protestant Christianity or English ancestry, he recognized the necessity of a core culture. He believed that new members of the nation must assimilate into this cultural foundation for America to remain cohesive.
Without a clearly defined cultural heritage for new arrivals to embrace, a country risks devolving into a fragmented, multicultural patchwork. Principles and ideas matter, but they are not abstract concepts detached from the people who uphold them.
The American proposition emerged from a specific people — the American nation — and cannot simply be transplanted elsewhere with the expectation of identical results.
If America is to regain its greatness, it must do so within the context of its Anglo-Protestant heritage, ensuring that those fortunate enough to join this nation seek to assimilate into that tradition.
The question Who are we? will be answered, whether conservatives engage with it or not. It is essential that they put forward a shared national identity — one that honors America’s past while embracing the remarkable achievements its people can accomplish together in the future.
Trump Can Make The Arts Great Again With Appointees Who Love Beauty And Tradition
America’s cultural institutions have become overt ideological battlegrounds, prioritizing politics over art.Blaze News investigates: Why are Islamists targeting Catholic priests?
Nigeria is a youthful, fast-growing country with an estimated population of over 235 million. According to the CIA Worldbook's 2018 estimate, roughly 53.5% of the Nigerian population is Muslim and roughly 45.9% of the population is Christian — 10.6% of which is Roman Catholic.
While Nigeria is now home to around 100 million Christians — the sixth-largest Christian population in the world as of 2019 — numbers have proven no guarantee of protection for the faithful against intense persecution, especially not from the jihadist groups hell-bent on totally transforming Nigeria into an Islamist nation. This persecution takes various forms, one of which is kidnapping.
Although the former British colony sees millions of kidnappings every year, it is clear that many are religiously and/or ideologically motivated, especially when it comes to the persistent abductions of priests.
Terrorism and conquest
Nigeria is plagued by Islamic terrorists and gangs, including the al-Qaeda-affiliated outfit Ansaru, Islamic State of West African Province, and the terrorist group Boko Haram, which has reportedly killed over an estimated 36,000 people over the past two decades.
Some academics have warned against similarly recognizing elements of the deadlier, mass-killing Fulani herder-militant groups as religiously motivated terrorists, and others have suggested their attacks are instead economically or climate-driven. However, Nigerian Christians such as Bishop Wilfred Chikpa Anagbe of the Diocese of Makurdi recognize that the Fulani herders' apparent systematic killing of Christians also has "a motive of religion behind it."
Bishop Anagbe said in 2021, "The Fulani killers are Muslims, and the conquering of territory is paramount to large Muslim populations in Nigeria."
'I classify them as terrorists now.'
Jeff King, president of International Christian Concern and a leading expert on religious persecution, told Blaze News that like Boko Haram, the Fulani militants, a group of traditionally nomadic cattle herders seeking greater grazing lands for their livestock, "are also driven by Islam's practice of using violence to subjugate territories to Islam. In fact, the Fulanis are the driving force behind radical Islam's massive land-grab of a huge swath of Africa known as the Sahel. They are motivated by a desire to rebuild a caliphate they had built in the 1700s and 1800s."
Christians in the region have long suffered the savagery of these Muslim groups.
For instance, on July 19, 2024, Islamic Fulani militants reportedly dragged Christians out of their homes in Benue State and shot them, leaving 18 dead and many more wounded, reported ICN.
"I no longer call them bandits because I'm seeing elements of terrorism in their activities," Justine Shaku, the chairman of the local Katsina Ala government, said in a statement. "I classify them as terrorists now."
'Gaza and Ukraine are deadly, but if you're a Christian, the most likely place in the world to be hunted and killed is Nigeria.'
Muslim Fulani militants also massacred hundreds of Christians in over 160 villages on Christmas 2023, burning down eight churches in the process.
On June 5, 2022, terrorists later identified by the Nigerian government as members of ISIS-West Africa stormed into St. Francis Xavier Catholic Church in the southwestern city of Owo, where parishioners were celebrating Pentecost Sunday. The terrorists slaughtered at least 41 parishioners, including children — some reports indicated more than 80 victims killed in the church — and brutally injured scores of others.
Mark Hill, a visiting professor of law and distinguished fellow at the University of Notre Dame, and Thomas Hellenbrand of the Society of Jesus noted in a 2022 paper that violence between Nigeria's religious and ethnic groups has worsened over the past two decades "due in part to the enlargement of the jurisdiction of Sharia Courts of Appeal in twelve Nigerian states after 1999, which have allowed the courts to handle Islamic criminal law, and are generally considered better run than their civil equivalents."
"Islamic jihadists in the north have attempted to use Sharia law to mobilize Muslims against minority Christian communities, notwithstanding the long-standing peaceful coexistence of indigenous Christian minorities in states such as Kano, Jihawa, Katsina, Zamfara, and Kebbi."
The Christian persecution watchdog Open Doors now ranks Nigeria as the sixth-worst place for Christians in the world:
More believers are killed for their faith in Nigeria each year than everywhere else in the world combined. The attacks are often brutal in nature and can involve destruction of properties, abductions for ransom, sexual violence and death. Believers are stripped of their livelihoods and driven from their homes, leaving a trail of grief and trauma. Violence by Islamic extremist groups such as Fulani militants, Boko Haram and ISWAP (Islamic State in West African Province) increased during the presidency of Muhammadu Buhari, putting Nigeria at the epicenter of targeted violence against the church. The government's failure to protect Christians and punish perpetrators has only strengthened the militants' influence.
Ryan Brown, the CEO of Open Doors US, said in a statement to Blaze News, "More believers are killed for their faith in Nigeria than anywhere else in the world."
Mindy Belz, an American journalist who has covered wars in Africa and the Middle East, emphasized the gravity of the situation last year in the Wall Street Journal, writing, "Gaza and Ukraine are deadly, but if you're a Christian, the most likely place in the world to be hunted and killed is Nigeria — a diverse country with a constitutional federal government and one of Africa's largest economies."
Despite their apparent bloodthirst, some Islamic terrorists and gangs have realized that victims are more valuable alive.
Captive shepherds
While groups like Boko Haram may still partially fund their operations through illegal mining, holding priests and seminarians captive now serves as an additional revenue stream as well a strategic means of disrupting Christian communities.
The Catholic Church, a popular target for extremists in the region, does not officially pay ransoms as a matter of policy; however, parishioners and others in the church routinely front the cash to spring the abducted church personnel, saving lives on the one hand but risking perpetuating the cycle of victimization on the other.
Maria Lozano, press director at the pastoral Catholic aid organization Aid to the Church in Need International, told Blaze News that "if ransoms are paid, it is usually because the parishioners, some financially well off faithful, and the families have collectively gathered the requested funds."
BishopMatthew Hassan Kukah of Nigeria's Sokota Diocese admitted in 2023 to shelling out roughly $37,200 to rescue church personnel from kidnappers.
"Many things have happened to us in Sokoto. We have had our churches burned down, the killing of Deborah Emmanuel [a Nigerian Christian student who was stoned to death by a Muslim mob], our cathedral was almost burned down, and my priests were almost killed," Kukah told ACI Africa. "I have lost a seminarian, I've lost a priest; we have spent over 30 million naira which we don't have to rescue our pastoral agents from kidnappers."
In the past several months alone, there have been numerous abductions, including:
- Fr. Gerald Ohaeri, a member of the Missionary Society of the Holy Spirit, who was kidnapped on Nov. 30, 2024, after celebrating Mass, then released on Dec. 4;
- Fr. Christian Uchegbu, a priest in the Diocese of Orlu, who was kidnapped on Nov. 6, 2024;
- Fr. Emmanuel Azubuike, the parish priest at St. Theresa's Church in the Diocese of Okigwe, who was kidnapped on Nov. 5, 2024, then released on Nov. 11;
- Fr. Thomas Oyode, the rector of the Immaculate Conception Minor Seminary in the Diocese of Auchi, who was kidnapped on Oct. 27, 2024, then freed on Nov. 7;
- Fr. Mikah Suleiman, the parish priest at St. Raymond Damba in the Diocese of Sokoto, who was kidnapped on June 22, 2024, then freed by July 7;
- Fr. Christian Ike, the parish priest at St. Matthew's Church in the Diocese of Ekwulobia, who was kidnapped along with a parishioner, Ogbonnia Aneke, on June 16;
- Fr. Gabriel Ukeh, a priest in the Diocese of Kafanchan, who was kidnapped on June 9, 2024, then freed the next day;
- Fr. Oliver Buba, a priest in the Diocese of Yola, who was kidnapped on May 21, 2024, then freed on May 30;
- Fr. Basil Gbuzuo, a priest in the Archdiocese of Onitsha, who was kidnapped on May 15, 2024, then abandoned on May 23;
- Frs. Kenneth Kanwa and Jude Nwachukwu, priests at St. Vincent de Paul Fier Parish in the Diocese of Pankshin, who were kidnapped on Feb. 1, 2024, then released on Feb. 8; and
- Fr. Thaddeus Tarhembe, the parish priest of St. Ann’s Sarkin Kudu Parish in the Diocese of Wukari, who was kidnapped on Oct. 29, 2023, then released the following day.
The radicals who target priests and seminarians sometimes butcher their victims. For instance, Fr. Tobias Chukwujekwu Okonkwo, a 38-year-old priest and pharmacist, was reportedly murdered on Dec. 26, 2024.
The previous year, Fr. Isaac Achi was burned alive by Islamic terrorists.
Crux reported that two years after jihadists bombed his church in Madalla on Christmas Day, killing 44 parishioners, Achi was kidnapped by militants. Although he survived, years later, Islamic gunmen would once again storm into his church, this time Saints Peter and Paul Church in Niger State, yelling, "Allahu Akbar." The gunmen in the deadly January 2023 attack held Achi and another priest, Fr. Collins Omeh, at gunpoint. After Achi urged his fellow priest to escape, both priests were shot, but Omeh still managed to get away. Angered by the turn of events and Achi's heroism, the gunmen set fire to the rectory, leaving the wounded priest to die in the inferno.
"It's got to a point where out of ten [priests] in Nigeria, four are at risk of being kidnapped," Nigerian criminologist Emeka Umeagbalasi told the Tablet in June. "Out of that four, one or two are at high risk of being killed in captivity."
Blaze News reached out to various Nigerian Catholic dioceses impacted by the kidnappings for comment, including the Archdioceses of Abuja and Lagos and the Dioceses of Auchi, Awka, Minna, and Wukari, but did not receive responses by deadline.
Money and the 'stealth jihad'
King told Blaze News that "these abductions are often used to spread fear, fund further terror activity, or force conversions, targeting Christian communities to undermine their stability and presence."
"There is substantial evidence that clergymen and seminarians in Nigeria are specifically targeted due to their Christian faith and their potential deep pockets," continued King. "This targeting is part of a broader strategy by groups like Boko Haram and Fulani Islamist militants to eliminate Christian influence, as noted by the systematic attacks on churches and church leaders."
Lozano noted that priests and religious sisters are also prime targets because they "don't hesitate to be present in places that many people avoid working on."
"Priests are frequently abducted in areas affected by conflict, extremism, or political instability, where they may be seen as representatives of a specific faith or because they are considered easy targets," added Lozano.
Just as with the broader persecution of Christians in the region, religion appears to be a major factor when it comes to the abductions, though Lozano noted there are other factors at play.
Catholic priests and seminarians are often targeted because of their faith, particularly by Islamic extremists. However, it's important to understand the broader dynamics in Nigeria. We must differentiate between regions such as the Middle Belt, Maiduguri, Kaduna, Benin, and Lagos, as the motivations behind these attacks can vary. In some cases, priests are targeted directly because of their faith, while in others, the primary motive may be linked to the general lawlessness and insecurity in the region. There are economic kidnappings perpetrated by criminals who are only looking for quick money. Kidnapping has become a business in many cases. However, priests and seminarians are vulnerable in all cases due to their commitment to serve.
Archbishop Kaigama of Abuja similarly suggested to ACN in 2021 — after Bishop Moses Chikwe of the Catholic Archdiocese of Owerri was kidnapped by armed bandits — that while there were criminals undertaking abductions for "quick money," there were also Islamists seeking to "conquer those they consider infidels, and Christians are number one on their list."
Umeagbalasi noted that priest kidnappings in the north of the country are usually conducted by jihadists "in furtherance of their quest to Islamize Nigeria. Those who kidnap priests in the eastern part of the country are out for ransom payments."
'The Islamist deep state in Nigeria is aiding and abetting a stealth jihad.'
Archbishop Kaigama noted that the kidnapping situation is "a disease that is spreading without any significant effort being made to stop it." While the kidnapping of religious leaders amounted to an escalation and "big news," Kaigama noted that multitudes of other Nigerians are suffering the same fates: "They are what I would call silent victims, and there are many of them."
According to the Crime Experience and Security Perception Survey released by Nigeria's National Bureau of Statistics in December, over 2.2 million Nigerians were kidnapped between May 2023 and April 2024. Among the households that suffered kidnapping incidents, 65% reportedly paid a ransom. The survey indicated that Nigerians paid over $1.42 billion at the current exchange rate as ransom during that time period.
While the Catholic Church reportedly invests heavily in prevention measures as well as in training priests and nuns on how to deal with these frequently occurring hostilities, Lozano indicated that "governments must invest in improving law enforcement capabilities, especially in regions where abductions are most prevalent."
Extra to training police, improving resources for intelligence gathering, reinforcing border patrol to curb human trafficking across state lines, and promoting religious dialogue, Lozano suggested that the influence of extremist groups and criminal organizations can be reduced by “tackling poverty, fighting corruption, and promoting economic development."
Governmental indifference — or worse
When asked whether Nigeria's federal government and law enforcement have done enough to help victims and to protect Catholics in the country, Lozano noted that the response has "been criticized for being insufficient. Catholics and Nigerians, in general, do not feel that they are being well protected."
The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom indicated in its 2024 annual report that the government not only failed to prevent attacks against Christians and churches but has faced accusations of actually fomenting certain attacks.
King told Blaze News, "The Nigerian government has done nothing for two decades despite the approximately 100,000 Christians killed and 3.5 million Christian farmers and families displaced. Perpetrators are very rarely engaged or chased down by the military. In fact, many report that the military has cordoned off Christian areas for attackers to enter. In the very rare instances where we see a quick military response [it] is when Christians have responded to attackers with gunfire."
"To be very frank and impolitic, the simple and obvious truth is that the Islamist deep state in Nigeria is aiding and abetting a stealth jihad and slow-moving genocide against Christians in Nigeria," said King. "Until the international community (especially the U.S.) cries foul and says 'no more,' it will continue. President Trump will hopefully lead the way."
Trump stated in an October post on Truth Social, "When I am President, I will protect persecuted Christians."
Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) echoed Trump on Oct. 23, writing, "The United States should fight against the persecution of Christians all over the world, and it will when President Trump is back in the White House."
The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom recommended in its latest report that the the U.S. government "designate Nigeria as a 'country of particular concern,' or CPC, for engaging in systematic, ongoing, and egregious violations of religious freedom." The Biden State Department previously dropped the country's CPC designation.
The USCIRF also recommended that Congress ask the Government Accountability Office to investigate the effectiveness of American aid to Nigeria in achieving religious freedom objectives in the country.
When asked about what the faithful at home can do, King and Lozano both emphasized the importance of prayer, advocacy, and financial support.
"Nigeria needs our prayers, but it also requires our support, both financial and advocacy," said Lozano. "People can raise awareness about the situation in Nigeria. Sharing information about the persecution of Catholics and other religious minorities helps to bring global attention to the crisis, which can, in turn, lead to greater support from international communities. It is good to advocate for Nigeria by urging governments, international organizations, and institutions to take a stronger stance against religious persecution. This includes urging for diplomatic pressure, greater law enforcement, and the protection of religious freedoms in Nigeria."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Christmas terror attack should end the immigration debate
A terrorist drove his car into a crowded Christmas market in Magdeburg, Germany, killing five and injuring more than 200 just days before the holiday. Given the prevalence of terror attacks in Europe committed by radical Muslims, many immediately assumed the motive was linked to Islam. When authorities revealed the alleged attacker was Arab, the assumption appeared accurate. Investigators later disclosed, however, that the suspect was an anti-Islam activist motivated by his belief that Germany was failing to address the perceived threat of Islam.
Regardless of whether the attacker was a religious radical or a militant atheist, one thing is certain: He could not have slaughtered German children if Germany had never let him enter the country in the first place.
The practice of importing large numbers of foreigners into your nation, especially from places that hate you, is the problem.
Details surrounding the Magdeburg attack remain unclear, partly due to German privacy laws and the suspect’s unusual online presence. Authorities identified the attacker as 50-year-old Taleb al-Abdulmohsen, a Saudi Arabian doctor who had lived in Germany since 2006. Al-Abdulmohsen maintained an active X account where he frequently criticized Islam and its impact on Arab society. He also accused Germany of failing Arabs by not doing enough to secularize new immigrants.
The Saudi doctor expressed support for Alternative for Germany, the populist right-wing party, prompting media outlets to label the attack as far-right terrorism. However, al-Abdulmohsen described himself as a liberal frustrated with the failures of the political left. Predictably, the press seized the opportunity to blame the attack on their political opponents, despite the complexities of the suspect’s motives.
Vetting won’t save us
Immigration remains a contentious issue across Western nations, driven by the open-border policies of their ruling elites. Elon Musk, who supported Donald Trump in the most recent U.S. election, has frequently described the AFD as the country’s only hope for the future. While Musk has made his opposition to illegal immigration clear, he continues to advocate a significant increase in “high-skilled” immigration. Even after the Magdeburg attack, Musk argued that diversity can work with proper vetting. This stance is perplexing, given the identity and ideology of the terrorist, which should challenge the belief that proper vetting ensures safety.
Trump and his MAGA movement have gained significant momentum by securing the support of Silicon Valley tech elites like Musk, David Sacks, and Vivek Ramaswamy. These figures may not fit the mold of the traditional Christian conservative associated with the Republican Party, but they understand that the woke progressive agenda is a path to societal collapse. These industry leaders, focused on building, innovating, and exploring, recognize that leftist policies obstruct progress.
The infusion of financial backing and elite influence has revitalized the populist movement. It’s no exaggeration to say that Trump’s potential second term may owe much to Musk’s purchase of Twitter and his substantial contributions to Trump’s campaign. This support has provided the MAGA movement with resources it desperately needed to solidify its platform.
The Silicon Valley tech billionaires supporting Trump benefit enough from his policies to back him, but their interests often diverge from those of his average voter. Immigration is the most significant point of contention. Musk and Ramaswamy say they want to slash illegal immigration while streamlining and increasing legal immigration, particularly for high-skilled tech workers through H-1B visas. Like other industries, tech companies benefit from expanding the pool of qualified workers, which lowers labor costs. Instead of investing in training Americans to create a steady supply of skilled workers — a process that requires time and money — corporations prefer to import foreign labor to fill those roles.
Conservative leaders often claim that America is “an idea,” defined by a set of values that anyone can adopt. They argue that once individuals embrace these values, they should be allowed into the country. This perspective is echoed in other Western nations like the United Kingdom and Germany, where governments promote the belief that importing workers for economic benefit is possible if they adhere to certain ideals.
The flaws in this understanding of human nature and national identity are starkly evident in the aftermath of the Magdeburg terror attack. Blind faith in the idea that culture and values can be instantly adopted fails to account for the complexities of integration and the potential risks associated with importing labor without scrutiny.
Time to limit large-scale immigration
For Musk and Ramaswamy, Taleb al-Abdulmohsen might have seemed like the ideal immigrant. A skilled doctor, he abandoned the faith of his home country and embraced the secular ideals of his adopted nation. Al-Abdulmohsen was highly skilled, economically productive, and advocated greater assimilation among his fellow Arabs. Despite these attributes, he still identified collectively with Arabs as his people and ultimately acted in the manner of an Islamic terrorist.
Some have speculated that al-Abdulmohsen was lying and only pretended to be a model minority to gain trust and put himself in the position to commit this atrocity. I find that theory to be entirely possible, but it only highlights how foolish it is to believe that an ideology test can protect a nation. If your vetting process can be subverted by a candidate who is willing to tell a few lies, then it is of no value. The practice of importing large numbers of foreigners into your nation, especially from places that hate you, is itself the problem.
None of this addresses the profound immorality of undercutting a country’s own population for economic gain. Americans are told that immigration is necessary because immigrants take jobs the native population doesn’t want. Yet leaders also bring in immigrants to fill high-skill, well-paying jobs that Americans actively seek. At every turn, average Americans are pushed aside in favor of the economic interests of industries like the tech sector, while they bear the social and financial costs of large-scale immigration. Even Donald Trump has occasionally used this language, as seen in his comments about stapling green cards to college diplomas.
Americans across the political spectrum consistently want less immigration — both legal and illegal — and they always have. The people of the United States deserve safety and policies that prioritize their economic interests. If corporations need more highly skilled labor, they should invest in training Americans to fill those roles. Wealth and education didn’t prevent most of the 9/11 hijackers from becoming bad actors, and as the Magdeburg attack demonstrates, ideological tests also failed to screen out potential threats.
The only guaranteed way to prevent terror attacks by immigrants is to limit large-scale immigration altogether. Donald Trump was given a mandate by voters who want less immigration across the board, and he must deliver.
Why breastfeeding is overrated
Almost 10 years ago, when my first of four sons was born, I struggled with breastfeeding.
The baby could not latch. From the moment we arrived home from the hospital, I succumbed to an all-too-common fate: pumping around the clock to get the alleged benefits of breast milk. Thus, I joined a warrior sisterhood: moms for whom breastfeeding is a battle but who endure adversity and ignore opportunity cost for that “liquid gold.”
Remember the unconscionably senseless measures taken ostensibly to combat coronavirus? Then you know what this kind of pseudo-scientific conspiracy on the left looks like. But unlike masks and school closures, the “breast is best” shibboleth boasts adherents on the right as well.
My tenure in this virtuous company was brief.
I hated lugging the pump on my train commute to work in the humidity of a Philadelphia summer. But like many mothers, I had no significant time off; I carried my family’s excellent health insurance through my university employer and had not yet been there long enough to earn maternity leave.
I loathed sleeping no more than 60 minutes at a stretch for weeks on end. But exclusively pumping for a newborn takes 12 hours a day: 30 minutes to feed from a bottle and 30 minutes to pump, every two hours — not to mention all the bottle and pump-part washing. I resented the inability to enjoy small things (like a fresh cup of coffee, an uninterrupted conversation with a friend, or my sweet baby himself) and to complete mundane tasks (like unloading the dishwasher). But I was chained to the pump.
As my supply dropped despite diligent pumping, I supplemented more and more with formula. I read up on the ostensible benefits of breast milk to understand how this formula feeding was going to negatively impact my son’s long-term health and IQ.
Superstition, not science
The unexpected answer? Not at all. “Breast is best,” I learned, is superstition dressed up as science.
As economist Emily Oster documented at length in 2018’s "Cribsheet," there is a vast scientific literature detailing the lack of any measurable differences in outcome between breast-fed and formula-fed babies once you control for the other variables associated with breastfeeding. In other words: All of the oft-touted “benefits” of breastfeeding are really benefits of the higher maternal income and education correlated with breastfeeding.
For example, breast milk does not raise IQ. Having a mother (and father) with a high IQ is what raises IQ. Higher intelligence correlates with income and education; hence, higher-intelligence mothers are more likely to breastfeed their babies.
After understanding this reality, I liberated myself from the pump and packed it away. I hypothesize that many of my fellow struggling-to-breastfeed moms would do the same and experience the same liberation, if they understood that the struggle is in fact for naught.
Make no mistake: If breastfeeding were easy for me, I would have done it. And my children would have been well nourished. But it wasn’t, so I didn’t. And my children have in point of fact been equally well nourished with formula.
So why is this canard that “breast is best” still so widely accepted and believed?
'Good mom' signaling
As a mom who got caught up in it myself despite my general rejection of pseudo-medical dogma, I can hazard an informed guess: Unlike almost any other sacred cow today, this myth about the benefits of breastfeeding has influential adherents across the ideological spectrum, not just on the left or on the right. Therefore, it seems nonideological.
In reality, though, breastfeeding mythology is deceptively ideological: It ensnares partisans on both sides, albeit for different reasons.
On the left, a mainstream feminism that disdains the traditional family has to invent ways to graft “feminist” value onto motherhood because some of its adherents still want to have children. When life is not an end in itself, it has to be justified by the identitarian posturing and in-group virtue-signaling of those who choose it. In that framework, many leftist moms who see parenthood as a morally neutral lifestyle choice also choose to breastfeed so that their kids will be healthy and smart.
From their perspective, many apolitical and conservative moms who see motherhood not as an intensive boutique hobby but as the near-universal vocation of female adulthood might or might not breastfeed because they do not really understand what’s good for kids. If they did, the condescending train of thought goes, none of them would vote Republican.
Given the already fraught issue of motherhood within the feminist self-conception, elite “good moms” will actively avoid scientific information that counteracts their ability to separate themselves from non-elite “regular moms.” The mythology of breast milk’s nutritional superiority is so useful as a vehicle for leftist identitarian posturing around maternity that it does not matter to some adherents whether it is true.
'Mask up!' redux
Remember the unconscionably senseless measures taken ostensibly to combat coronavirus? Then you know what this kind of pseudo-scientific conspiracy on the left looks like. But unlike masks and school closures, the “breast is best” shibboleth boasts adherents on the right as well.
For some conservatives, anything that smacks of minimizing or denying the differences between men and women — as baby formula does, by rendering dads equally capable of feeding babies — is prima facie verboten. On the religious right in particular, an idealized image of nurturing, self-sacrificing motherhood has become sacrosanct. No argument that might plausibly result in the further marginalization of traditional maternity from our broader cultural conception of a female life well lived is permitted. Not even if that argument — like that baby formula is equal to breast milk for nourishing babies — is factually correct.
In a moment when many claim there are in fact men who both breastfeed and menstruate, I share the conservative desire to return to a world in which “what is a woman?” has a self-evident answer. However, such a world would likely not be one in which each mother stays home to lovingly nourish her own children with her own body. Such a world is the stuff of anti-feminist fantasy. It never existed. In other words, so-called “trad wives” are anything but traditional.
In the agrarian society that composed all of human history until quite recently, all but the richest women worked, either on farms or in the homes of wealthier women. Including mothers. Meanwhile, there have always been women who either could not or did not wish to breastfeed. It was common for such women to have others nurse their babies; it was also common for babies to die of starvation in the absence of adequate nutrition.
The blessing of formula
If I lived in the 1700s and I were fortunate, a sister or a friend would have nursed my babies while I did her farm chores or watched her toddlers. Or, if I were very fortunate and had the means, I would have hired a wet nurse. If I were unfortunate — and many women were — my children would have perished in infancy.
God bless baby formula for reducing the ranks of the thus unspeakably unfortunate to nearly zero.
To curse such an unequivocal good instead because its use has coincided with (and, yes, can help to facilitate) feminist developments that sadly encourage women to eschew maternity more broadly is illogical, uncharitable, and counterproductive. Yet the mythology of breastfeeding’s synonymity with true womanhood is so useful as a vehicle for conservative identitarian posturing around maternity that it does not matter to some adherents whether it is true.
If conservatives’ goal is for more women to have more babies, they should defend the use of baby formula. If feminists’ goal is for women to be ever more liberated from the disproportionate costs of parenthood in comparison to men, they should do the same.
“Breast is best” is not best for anyone.
Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com
www.theblaze.com