Distinction Matter - Subscribed Feeds

Mel Gibson’s return to biblical cinema is underway with The Resurrection of the Christ, the long-anticipated sequel to his 2004 epic The Passion of the Christ. This new film, which begins filming in 2026, promises to transcend a straightforward retelling of the Resurrection, instead offering a sweeping, supernatural vision of Christ’s victory over death.

Gibson has described it as an exploration of “another realm” – beginning with the exile of the demons from heaven’s court, descending into hell, and culminating in the glory of the Resurrection.

Given its scope, the film will not follow a typical, linear structure. According to Gibson, it will rather opt for a theologically rich metaphysical approach – one with which those who saw The Passion will be familiar (particularly in the scenes containing Judas or Satan).

Speaking to Joe Rogan on a recent podcast, Gibson disclosed that “[i]n order to really tell the story properly, you have to really start with the fall of the angels. You need to go to hell.”

Co-written with his brother Donal and with longtime collaborator Randall Wallace, the script took over six years to refine. Gibson believes The Resurrection will be the most difficult and ambitious challenge of his career.

“There’s a lot required because it is – I’ll just tell you this – it’s an acid trip,” he said.

Gibson nevertheless desires to meticulously commit to historical and theological authenticity, asserting, “I regard the Gospels as history. It’s verifiable history.”

Jim Caviezel, who delivered an impactful and physically mortifying performance as Jesus in The Passion, will reprise the role in the sequel. Despite the 20-year gap since the original film, Caviezel’s return will be made seamless through advanced de-aging technology, ensuring continuity in his portrayal of Christ at the age of 33 years old.

Filming is to begin in 2026 at Rome’s renowned Cinecittà Studios, with additional scenes planned in ancient southern Italian towns such as Matera, Ginosa, Gravina, Laterza and Altamura – locations chosen for their historical authenticity and visual resonance with first-century Judea.

Matera, in the Italian region of Basilicata, was used as the convincing filming location for Jerusalem in The Passion, particularly during the Via Dolorosa scenes. In this choice, further continuity will be ensured between the two biblical epics Gibson will have directed.

However, other continuities will not be possible. In 2023, Gibson mourned the loss of Christo Jivkov, the Bulgarian actor who played St John the Apostle. Given St John’s prominent role among the twelve, and his importance in the early Church after the Resurrection, Jivkov’s sorely missed presence will present a challenge to the upcoming film.

Gibson’s artistic vision is deeply informed by his faith. A longtime passionate Sedevacantist Catholic – someone who rejects popes and innovations in the Catholic Church following Vatican II – with a longstanding devotion to the Latin Mass, he has consistently used film as a medium to explore spiritual truth. “I do actually believe this stuff to the full,” he told Rogan – an outlook that has not only guided his creative direction but also shaped the spiritual atmosphere on his film sets.

This was especially evident during the making of The Passion of the Christ, which was marked by a series of extraordinary and, for many, providential occurrences. One of the most remarkable events involved lightning striking (literally) actor Jim Caviezel – not once, but twice. During the filming of the Sermon on the Mount scene, Caviezel was struck directly in front of a plethora of onlookers who rushed over to provide medical assistance; a crew member was subsequently also hit. Caviezel later described the experience, saying he felt “light surrounding his body” before losing consciousness.

The strange occurrences didn’t stop there. In addition to the lightning strikes, Caviezel also endured a dislocated shoulder during the scourging scenes, was accidentally lashed with a real whip that tore a 14-inch gash across his spine, and developed pneumonia and hypothermia during the crucifixion sequences. “Every day, I was carrying my cross,” Caviezel later reflected. Yet he was convinced that the physical suffering added spiritual depth to his portrayal.

Even more significant were the spiritual transformations that took place among the cast and crew. Several individuals, including Luca Lionello, who played Judas Iscariot, experienced profound conversions to Christianity or returned to the Church after filming. Lionello, who had been an outspoken atheist, credited the experience of playing Judas and being part of the film with opening his heart to faith.

Many others on set reported feeling a palpable spiritual presence during key scenes, especially during the crucifixion. There were reports of spontaneous prayer, reverence and even weeping among non-religious crew members. These occurrences – many of which were confirmed or disclosed only years later – were not treated as publicity stunts but as signs that something greater was at work, making The Passion not just a film but an experience that transcended the screen.

Then, there was the opposition arraigned against the film. Before The Passion even hit theatres, it experienced an unusual level of hostility and challenge. Gibson described how no established producing consortium or studio would take the project. According to Gibson, Rupert Murdoch had been interested – but was reportedly threatened if he did.

“And then somebody advised him and said he’d be out of business in five years – Rupert Murdoch!…in five years if he distributed that…And I was like, wow. If he’s scared…I’m gonna…I’m gonna crash and burn here,” Gibson revealed.

When the film was released, it nevertheless performed incredibly well at the box office. Distributed by a minor company, and having eschewed traditional Hollywood giants, it was the first to do manage such a feat and typically shouldn’t have.

It nevertheless immediately received a slurry of scathing onslaught from secular media, influenced by a campaign from Abraham Foxman at the Anti-Defamation League, accusing the film of antisemitism. This was despite the fact both the film’s heroes and heroines are Jewish – and even some members of the Sanhedrin and Pharisees are portrayed sympathetically. Maia Morgenstern, the Romanian-Jewish actress who played Mary, publicly defended the film against the ludicrous charges of antisemitism.

The plethora of unusual events surrounding the film, both on set and then surrounding its release, have been noted by observers, especially the faithful. Other eerie and unusual anecdotes include the fact that Jim Caveziel’s initials match those of the great mysterious figure he portrayed, and that the name of Maia Morgenstern translates from German and Yiddish as “Mary Star of the Morning” – a typical title for the Virgin Mary. Many have noted that all this combines to serve as a powerful reminder of otherworldly forces at play – both in favour of and against the film’s creation.

This intense spiritual atmosphere is expected to carry over into The Resurrection of the Christ. Gibson has called it “the biggest challenge of my life”, emphasising that the film is not intended to replicate the success of its predecessor but to complete the spiritual narrative. While The Passion focused on Christ’s suffering and death, the new film will centre on His victory – His triumph over death, His harrowing of Hell, and His transformation of the world. “Who gets back up three days later after He gets murdered in public? Who gets back up under His own power?” Gibson asks. “Buddha didn’t do that s***.”

With a deep commitment to theological accuracy and spiritual depth, The Resurrection of the Christ promises to be a film that not only tells the story of the Resurrection but invites reflection on its cosmic and historical significance. With Caviezel’s return, Gibson’s profound faith, and the lessons learned from the challenges of The Passion, the sequel is shaping up to be not just a cinematic event, but an act of devotion. If the atmosphere on the previous film set is any indication, audiences can expect something much more than spectacle – something sacred.

RELATED: Mel Gibson sequel to ‘The Passion’ to start filming in August after 20-year wait

Photo: Peruvian clergymen depart the cinema after watching Mel Gibson’s biblical blockbuster ‘The Passion of the Christ, Lima, Peru, 11 March 2004. (Photo credit ALEJANDRA BRUN/AFP via Getty Images.)

The post Mel Gibson’s new film on the Resurrection: a metaphysical ‘acid trip’ into the supernatural first appeared on Catholic Herald.

The post Mel Gibson’s new film on the Resurrection: a metaphysical ‘acid trip’ into the supernatural appeared first on Catholic Herald.

Cardinal Gerhard Müller has said the Roman Catholic Church needs to stand up to the “gay lobby” as part of taking a stronger position “on doctrine” that resists ideologically driven pressures.

The comments from the German cardinal, who is viewed as a influential traditionalist and was one of the strongest critics of Pope Francis during his papacy, came shortly before it was announced that the conclave to elect the next pope will occur on 7 May, reports the Daily Telegraph.

Cardinal Müller told Italian media La Stampa in a 28 April article that the next pope needs to be “strong on doctrine” and “determined to stand up to ideological lobbies, including the gay lobby”.

He said the next pontiff should also have “a solid theological and doctrinal formation”, and called for a return to “orthodoxy, doctrine founded on Scripture and apostolic tradition, and against heresy”.

Focusing on the issue of marriage and the “gay lobby”, he pointed to the words of Jesus as providing clarity on this controversial and polarised issue that increasingly roils the Church.

“Doctrine is not the property of the pope, the bishops or the faithful,” the German cardinal said. “It must conform to the word of Jesus, no one can modify it.

“If Jesus says that marriage is between a man and a woman, no one can change this doctrine. The homosexual lobby wants to equate marriage with unions between people of the same sex, but this totally contradicts the doctrine of the Bible.”

The late pope’s 2023 decision to allow the blessing of same-sex couples sparked enormous controversy, with bishops in Africa and Asia refusing to permit the blessings. It was one of a number of decisions by Pope Francis with which Müller vehemently disagreed and as a result spoke out on.

Despite their apparent differences, though, Pope Francis himself also criticised the issue of homosexuality when it came to its influence in the Church.

Perhaps one of the least covered but most significant of Pope Francis’s controversies was his use of a crude slang term in referring to homosexuals during a session with Italian bishops in May 2024.

Francis was in the Vatican’s synod hall on 20 May to address the spring plenary assembly of the Italian Episcopal Conference (known by the acronym CEI), with roughly 230 bishops present, along with other clergy and supporting staff.

One of the topics that arose was the question of the admission of homosexual men to Catholic seminaries. Soon afterwards, rumours began to circulate that Francis had used an off-colour term in the context of the discussion, saying there’s already too much frociaggine in seminaries, which translates roughly to “faggotry”.

Some argued that since Italian was not the Pope’s mother tongue, he may not have understood that the term in question was offensive, especially given his reputation as the Pope of “Who am I to judge?”

Francis built a reputation for being friendly toward the LGBTQ+ community and its related issues, so media at the time took the position that he must have used the term almost accidentally, without intending to shock or offend.

The flurry of immediate backlash from the comment prompted a Vatican spokesman to put out a statement apologising, saying the Pope “never intended to offend or express himself in homophobic terms, and he apologises to those who felt offended by the use of a term, as reported by others”.

In a May 28 statement, Vatican spokesman Matteo Bruni reiterated previous statements from Francis that “in the Church there is space for everyone, for everyone! No one is useless, no one is superfluous, there is space for all. Just as we are, everyone”.

But Pope Francis used the term again a month later, in a June 2024 meeting with priests in the Pontifical Salesian University in Rome. The Italian news service ANSA reported that on that occasion, Francis said: “In Vaticano c’è aria di frociaggine” – meaning: “In the Vatican, there is an air of faggotry.”

That comment contradicted the initial narrative that the Pope did not know what he was saying when he used the term frociaggine. Instead, it indicated that Francis knew full well what the term signified and chose to employ a second time in public as he had a point to make.

What Francis demonstrated in the frocaggine fiasco, writes Crux Vatican correspondent Elise Ann Allen, was that despite his insistence on the need to be more welcoming toward members of the LBGTQ+ community, he clearly believed that there was an unhealthy gay element to clerical culture, and thought it was important enough to speak out about it.

On 7 May, Müller and his fellow cardinals – the so-called “Princes of the Church” – will gather inside the Sistine Chapel to pick a successor to Pope Francis, who died on Easter Monday at the age of 88 years old.

The date of the conclave was decided at a meeting of cardinals behind closed doors on Monday, two days after Pope Francis’s spectacular funeral in St Peter’s Square, reports the Telegraph.

The term “conclave” is derived from the Latin that means “with key”, and refers to cardinals being locked inside the chapel. Coming in the wake of a successful movie depiction of a conclave, the forthcoming gathering of cardinals to decide who will lead the world’s roughly 1.4 billion Catholics is being portrayed by much of the media as a battle between, in the words of the Telegraph, “progressives who want to continue the inclusive legacy of the late pope and traditionalists who want to roll back his reforms”.

In total, there are 252 cardinals in the Catholic church, but only 135 – those aged under 80 – are eligible to vote. Two have dropped out for medical reasons, another due to controversy, reducing the number of cardinal electors to 132.

Pope Francis appointed 108 of the cardinals – about 80 per cent – which it is argued gives the College of Cardinals a more “liberal” character, thereby making it more likely, it is reasoned, that they will choose someone with a liberal and reformist attitude similar to the late pontiff.

At the same time, however, conclaves have a track record of defying expectations and producing a pope that few saw coming.

The length of this coming conclave could well be impacted by the historically high number of cardinal electors and the sharply divergent views they hold.

The Telegraph reports the former head of the Italian Bishops Conference, 83-year-old Gualtiero Bassetti, explaining that it is hard to predict how long the conclave will last, though he suspects it won’t be long.

“There could be some difficulties because there have never been so many cardinal electors and many of them don’t know each other,” Cardinal Bassetti said.

“I have the feeling that this will not be a long conclave. Even among cardinals that I don’t know, and among those who come from the far reaches of the world, I see a great love for the Church and the desire for it to have a new leader as soon as possible.”

The longest conclave in history, which took place in the 13th century, lasted two years and nine months, while the longest during the 20th century lasted for five days.

The last two conclaves – those that elected Pope Benedict XVI in 2005 and Pope Francis in 2013 – lasted two days.

The cardinal electors come from 71 countries, with 53 from Europe, 23 from Asia, 21 from Latin America, 18 from Africa and 16 from North Africa.

Cardinal Müller has also warned, speaking out recently on a separate and earlier occasion, that the Catholic Church risks a schism if it does not choose an “orthodox” leader.

He has also criticised the use of labels “liberal” and “conservative” within the Catholic Church, pointing out the divide in the Church is deeper. The new pope, he said, “must be orthodox – neither a liberal nor a conservative”.

He said that “the question is not between conservatives and liberals but between orthodoxy and heresy”, adding: “I am praying that the Holy Spirit will illuminate the cardinals, because a heretic pope who changes every day depending on what the mass media is saying would be catastrophic.”

RELATED: Cardinal Müller warns Church risks split if ‘orthodox’ pope not chosen

Photo: German Cardinal Cardinal Gerhard Müller attends the swearing in ceremony for new members of the Vatican’s Swiss Guard at the Cortile di San Damaso, Vatican City, 6 May 2015. The ceremony is held on May 6 every year to commemorate the 147 halberdiers who died defending the Pope in 1527. (Photo by Franco Origlia/Getty Images.)

The post Cardinal Müller says next pope must stand up to ‘gay lobby’ first appeared on Catholic Herald.

The post Cardinal Müller says next pope must stand up to ‘gay lobby’ appeared first on Catholic Herald.

(LifeSiteNews) — Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò is doubling down on his belief that the upcoming conclave is invalid due to irregularities with its members.

“At most, the College will be able to designate its own representative, someone who will renew and continue the usurpation of the recently deceased predecessor, and see the ongoing fraud further ratified by a complicit or cowardly episcopate,” His Excellency told Italian journalist Francesco Borgonovo this week.

Following Francis’ death, Archbishop Viganò has spoken out on a number of topics, not only about Francis’ legacy, which he has described as a “usurpation” of the Throne of St. Peter, but also about the upcoming meeting of the cardinals, which is set to kick off on May 7.

In an April 23 letter sent to an Italian television program, His Excellency commented that due to “Bergoglio’s acceptance of the Papacy [being] flawed,” the clergy he has named cardinals are “false.”

“Of the 136 Cardinal electors, 108 were ‘created’ by [Bergoglio]; which means that whatever Pope is elected in the upcoming Conclave – even if he were a new Saint Pius X – his authority will be compromised by having been elected by false cardinals, created by a false Pope,” His Excellency said.

Archbishop Viganò re-iterated that position in his interview with Borgonovo.

“A College of Cardinals composed of 108 ‘cardinals’ created by a Jesuit who usurped the Papacy for twelve years cannot validly elect a legitimate pope,” he stated.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archbishop-vigano-cardinals-created-by-bergoglio-cannot-validly-elect-a-pope/

The New York State Assembly passed a controversial bill Tuesday that would legalize assisted suicide, a move critics warn could endanger vulnerable populations.

The Medical Aid in Dying Act, approved by a vote of 81-67, now heads to the Senate, where its fate remains uncertain.

The legislation, sponsored by Assemblymember Amy Paulin, D-Scarsdale, passed despite bipartisan opposition, by a vote of 81-67.

Jessica Rodgers, Coalitions Director for Patients’ Rights Action Fund, told LifeNews that her group would keep fighting the bill in the state Senate.

“This process began yesterday with a run on three committees to push it through, with the final committee taking action off the floor and immediately moving the bill to the agenda of the Assembly floor,” Rodgers explained. “I am so proud of our fantastic advocates in New York who have been fighting so hard for so long and so grateful for the impassioned bipartisan testimony in opposition. Our work is not over- we turn now to the Senate and continue to educate them in order to stop this bill.”

LifeNews is on GETTR. Please follow us for the latest pro-life news

“In New York, this bill has been coming up for a decade; we would have been here long ago without your consistent efforts, advocacy, and support! Lives have been saved because your efforts have kept this legislation at bay for so long,” she added.

Bill opponents, including pro-life advocates and disability rights groups, argue the bill poses significant risks. The New York State Catholic Conference and groups like Not Dead Yet have labeled it a “dangerous” step toward devaluing life, particularly for the disabled, elderly, and those with mental health challenges. Critics point to Canada’s assisted dying laws, where reports suggest loosened criteria have led to cases involving non-terminally ill individuals, as a cautionary tale.

Legalizing assisted suicide sends a chilling message that some lives are less worth living, they say and cite concerns that healthcare systems, already strained, might subtly pressure vulnerable patients into choosing death over costly care.

Dr. Eve Slater, a Columbia University professor, has argued that the bill violates the Hippocratic oath’s principle of “do no harm,” warning of a “slippery slope” toward broader misuse.

Pro-life advocates, buoyed by recent victories in states like Maryland, where similar legislation failed in 2024, are mobilizing to block the bill in the Senate. Maryland Right to Life’s campaign, which sent over 8,000 letters to legislators, highlighted risks to veterans and others with chronic conditions, a strategy New York opponents plan to emulate.

The Senate has not yet scheduled a vote, and religious leaders, including the Catholic Conference, continue to lobby against the bill, citing moral and ethical concerns.

If passed by the Senate and signed by Gov. Kathy Hochul, New York would become the 11th state to legalize assisted suicide, joining states like California and New Jersey. Hochul has not publicly stated her position, leaving the bill’s future in limbo as advocates and opponents prepare for a heated Senate battle.

The post New York Assembly Passes Dangerous Bill to Legalize Assisted Suicide appeared first on LifeNews.com.

Episode 77: The Jew And His Bank
April 29 2025

___________________________________
More Vids!
+BN Vids Archive! HERE!
___________________________________
Support The Brother Nathanael Foundation!
Br Nathanael Fnd Is Tax Exempt/EIN 27-2983459

Or Send Your Contribution To:
The Brother Nathanael Foundation, POB 547, Priest River, ID 83856
E-mail: brothernathanaelfoundation([at])yahoo[dot]com
Scroll Down For Comments

Steve Witkoff met the Russian president last week in the latest round of diplomacy on the Ukraine conflict

US special envoy Steve Witkoff sought to persuade Russian President Vladimir Putin to agree to a ceasefire last week that would halt fighting in the Ukraine conflict along the current frontlines, Bloomberg has reported, citing sources. Putin maintained a firm stance during the lengthy meeting, the sources said.

The discussions on Friday marked the latest in a series of contacts between Moscow and Washington in recent months. Witkoff, seen as a key figure in kickstarting negotiations on the Ukraine conflict, has held multiple rounds of talks with senior Russian officials, including at least three meetings with Putin.

People familiar with the process told Bloomberg on Tuesday that Putin insisted any viable peace deal must include formal recognition of the four former Ukrainian regions that joined Russia after referendums in 2022.

Moscow has long said it is open to negotiations but maintains that the status of Crimea – which joined Russia in 2014 – and the four other regions is not up for discussion.  Moscow insists that recognition of the “reality on the ground” is vital for a lasting peace.

Last week, Axios reported that Washington had presented Kiev with what US President Donald Trump described as a “final offer” to end the conflict. Under the proposal, the US is said to be prepared to grant “de jure” recognition of Crimea as part of Russia, and unofficially acknowledge Moscow’s “de facto” control over the Lugansk and Donetsk People’s Republics, as well as the regions of Kherson and Zaporozhye.

Vladimir Zelensky’s subsequent declaration that Kiev would never recognize Crimea as Russian prompted a warning from Trump that he risked losing his whole country if he continued stalling talks with Moscow.

Trump, who met with the Ukrainian leader on the sidelines of Pope Francis’ funeral at the Vatican on Saturday, was later asked by journalists if Zelensky was now prepared to “give up” the peninsula. “Oh, I think so, yeah,” he replied.

One source told Bloomberg that negotiations have stalled for now and that progress would likely require direct contact between Putin and Trump.

The two leaders held a two-hour phone call in March, during which they reaffirmed their commitment to achieving a “lasting peace” rather than a temporary solution to the Ukraine conflict.  Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said earlier this month that a Putin-Trump meeting “will take place” but only “at the appropriate time.”

The upcoming Australian election will be an illustration of how most Western elections will play out in the near future

Australian voters go to the polls next Saturday – voting in this country is compulsory, unlike in most Western democracies – but this is not a task that the electorate is looking forward to with any degree of enthusiasm, let alone optimism.

The choice that confronts the electorate is a bleak one – one commentator has fittingly described this election as “the most dismal in decades.”

Serious policy debate has been non-existent, with both leaders happy to offer meagre handouts to voters – an electricity price reduction from Prime Minister Albanese and a petrol price reduction from Conservative opposition leader Peter Dutton.    

The first term Albanese Labor government has, from any rational viewpoint, proved to be a rank failure and does not deserve to be re-elected – and any competent opposition leader should have been able to win this election easily and dispatch Labor to the opposition benches.

Cost-of-living pressures have increased exponentially over the past three years – energy and food prices have skyrocketed, and house prices and rents in the major cities are now far beyond what ordinary wage earners in this country can afford to pay.

This, according to every poll, is the major issue troubling voters – and the Albanese government has done absolutely nothing to alleviate it.

Australian voters intuitively know, even if they are reluctant to admit it, that both the incumbent Labor government and the Conservative Liberal/National party opposition are incapable of alleviating the cost-of-living crisis. In fact, during the election campaign, both leaders have been reduced to telling outright lies (for example, that heavily subsidized renewable energy projects lead to lower energy prices) about how they will solve the crisis. The electorate’s escalating disenchantment with both major parties should come as no surprise to either Albanese or Dutton.

As yet, however, no political alternative has emerged that offers voters a way out (no matter how illusory) of this seemingly intractable impasse. Australia, in this respect, appears to be a decade or so behind Donald Trump’s America, Nigel Farage’s UK and Marine Le Pen’s France.   

Both major parties in Australia are firmly committed to policies that favor the ruling global elites – with the result that the gap between the economic ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’ will only grow wider in the future as the cost-of-living crisis intensifies.

This is hardly surprising, given that Australia has always been a colonial political and economic satrap state of both the UK and the US.

So dependent still is Australia on these waning and decrepit colonial empires – they differ only in the way they enforce their respective colonial hegemonies – that our current head of state is King Charles III, and our economic overlords remain, in the apt words of Woody Guthrie, the “money grubbing racket boys” of Wall Street.

What then are we to make of next week’s election?

If almost all recent polls are to be believed, the inept Albanese Labor government appears to be on track to be re-elected with an increased majority.

How is this altogether surprising state of affairs to be explained?

It cannot be explained by the “achievements” of the Albanese government because, as intelligent Labor supporters know, there have been no achievements. Nor can it be explained by Albanese’s political skills or charisma – he is completely lacking in both – although perhaps his dogged blandness and non-threatening demeanor appeal to some voters.

Nor can it be explained by opposition leader Peter Dutton’s gross political incompetence, his brief flirtation with Trump that backfired disastrously when tariffs were imposed and the stock market crashed (Canada’s Liberal leader did not make this mistake), or the fact that he has run probably the worst election campaign in Australian political history.

The answer lies rather in the inability of the conservative opposition to formulate an effective alternative political agenda to that of the Labor party – and this failure arises not from Dutton’s manifold personal shortcomings, but from the fundamental ideological division at the heart of all mainstream conservative parties in the West.

A deep-seated ideological division has emerged over the past few decades within these parties: between those adhering to traditional middle-class values (individual autonomy, individual rights, the rule of law, a traditional definition of the family, etc.) and those that have embraced the newer woke ideologies of the emerging global elites  (catastrophic climate change, identity politics, DEI, transgender rights, etc).  This division has both economic and cultural aspects, and in the UK it was intensified by the Brexit referendum.

This ideological division has caused serious ongoing instability within all mainstream conservative parties in the West – in Australia and the UK, for example, these parties have been characterized by endless leadership coups that eventually led voters to throw them out of office in recent years.

One important consequence of this ideological division is that mainstream conservative parties cannot wholeheartedly and openly attack woke global ideologies with any degree of vigor  – because many of their politicians and supporters firmly subscribe to such views.

It is this issue that has crippled Dutton’s election campaign.

The Murdoch press and other conservative commentators have constantly urged Dutton to come out and explicitly attack dominant woke ideologies – that is, to adopt a fully-fledged Trump-like populist political agenda.

Dutton, however, has refused to do so – because it is simply impossible for him to do so within the framework of the mainstream conservative political party that he so tenuously leads.

If he tried to, he would alienate a large segment of his own party as well as a sizable component of conservative voters – thereby causing the coalition parties to split. More importantly, no traditional mainstream political party that is serious about winning an election can at present afford to openly attack dominant global ideologies – a majority of voters adhere to them, and no mainstream party can win office if it alienates a significant segment of these voters.

Dutton, therefore, has found himself in an impossible position.  

This was graphically illustrated in one of the recent televised debates, when a journalist asked Dutton if he believed in climate change. Dutton responded by saying “I will leave that to the scientists” – notwithstanding that the opposition is committed to the Paris accords and net zero.

This non-answer, of course, pleased no one. It alienated those conservative and undecided voters who firmly believe in climate change ideology – but it also alienated those conservative voters who believe that the climate change ideology has had lasting and pernicious economic effects.

In refusing to take a firm stand on this key issue, Dutton appears to stand for nothing. Does he really think that disgruntled voters who cannot afford to pay their electricity bills believe that climate change is just a matter for the scientists? 

It must surely be obvious to Dutton that, in order to win over those disaffected voters who have been left behind by globalization and who are being increasingly marginalized by the cost-of-living crisis, he has to openly attack dominant woke ideologies like catastrophic climate change – because it is precisely these voters who completely reject, for very sound economic and cultural reasons, such elite doctrines.

This, however, is Dutton’s dilemma – in order to differentiate the opposition from Labor and attract the increasing number of disaffected voters, Dutton is obliged to openly attack dominant woke ideologies, but, as the leader of a mainstream conservative party, he simply cannot do so. 

Dutton’s dilemma is also UK opposition leader Kemi Badenoch’s dilemma – and it is a dilemma that right-wing commentators who urge mainstream conservative party leaders to miraculously transform themselves into Trump-like populists utterly fail to understand.

These commentators also fail to appreciate that, apart from the difficulties described above, two further insurmountable problems face conservative leaders seeking to instantly morph into populists – they would have to adopt an isolationist foreign policy stance, and they would have to at least pretend to represent the interests of the displaced working class.

Dutton – just like Badenoch – is, however, a fervent Cold War warrior (fiercely anti-Russian and anti-Chinese) and a supporter of the Zelensky regime in Ukraine, as well as being a strident opponent of moderate trade union demands (he even consistently opposes basic wage increases).

Trump, of course, can readily promise to end the conflict in Ukraine and accept endorsement from the head of the Teamsters Union – policy stances utterly impossible for a conservative leader like Dutton to even contemplate.

If the above analysis is correct, and, as nearly all the polls predict, Dutton loses next week’s election, it follows that the conservative coalition in Australia will have no viable long-term future – in much the same way that the UK Conservative party appears to be doomed to political oblivion in the near future. This week’s local elections in the UK will be an important indicator of that party’s fate.

If the Albanese government is returned to office with a majority, as seems likely, Dutton will no doubt be deposed as leader, but in fairness to Dutton, his shadow cabinet colleagues – who he has wisely kept hidden away during the election campaign – are all far less competent politicians than he is.

There is, of course, an alternative scenario – one that mirrors the recent emergence of populist parties in other Western democracies – namely that the coalition parties will split and the right-wing segments of the Liberal and National parties will coalesce to form a new, genuinely populist party with a radically different political program.

This is a distinct possibility – although it may take some time to eventuate and would involve a significant amount of blood-letting and political disruption.

A new populist party would face a revitalized Labor party – energized by winning an election under an uninspiring leader that it did not deserve to win – but still firmly committed to elite ideologies and programs that can only deepen the cost-of-living crisis that continues to brutally divide Australia.

If the conservative coalition’s dilemma is that it cannot attack elite ideologies and programs, the Labor party’s dilemma (much like that of the Democratic party in America and the UK Labour party) is that it is firmly and irretrievably committed to them.

Whatever the consequences of next Saturday’s election it is safe to predict that the chronic ongoing instability that has characterized Australian politics for the past few decades – and politics in the West more generally – will only intensify.

In that sense nothing much will change – and there is a more fundamental historical continuity in the Australian context at work here.

In 1964, Donald Horne, a prominent Australian intellectual, wrote a book titled “The Lucky Country” in which he described Australia as follows: “Australia is a lucky country ruled mainly by second-rate people… It lives on other people’s ideas, and although its ordinary people are adaptable, most of its leaders… lack curiosity about the events that surround them.”

Horne could easily have been writing about Dutton and Albanese and next Saturday’s federal election.

The bloc’s attempts to belittle the Soviet role in the victory over Nazism are a “disgrace,” the filmmaker has told RT

Attempts by EU elites to diminish the significance of the USSR’s contribution to the victory over Nazism are a “perversion of history,” Oscar-winning American movie director Oliver Stone has told RT ahead of World War II Victory Day celebrations in Russia.

The bloc’s “elitist leadership” has distorted the message that World War II provides to humanity, the filmmaker has said. “I’m shocked by it, by [what] is happening,” he stated, calling it “a shame” and “a disgrace that we forgot or pretend to [have forgotten]” about the sacrifices the Soviet Union made during the war. Stone also said he did not believe people in Europe “buy this at all.”

“I think the people don’t agree with the government,” Stone maintained, going on to say that “the futility of this campaign against Russia by the EU” is obvious to “anybody, who reads history [books] and is intelligent.” The director of ‘Platoon’ and ‘JFK’ expressed his doubts that “fascism is popular” nowadays and stated instead that European elites had lost their way because of their “worship of the EU.”

“We are not back to the times of Hitler, but what is happening is a loss of perspective and we need to get back to a sense of reason,” Stone told RT as he called on Western leaders to “listen to the Russians” instead of antagonizing them.

He also expressed his hope that the US and Russia would manage to mend their relationship, opening the way to a better future for humanity. “Russia and the United States are a great partnership, as is China, by the way, and I think we could have a world that is much safer… if we all get together and realize that it’s a multilateral world.”

US President Donald Trump’s administration has been engaged in efforts to restore bilateral ties with Russia and resolve the Ukraine conflict.

On Wednesday, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that America now has a “better” understanding of the Russian position on the crisis. Moscow’s key conditions for ending the conflict are Ukraine’s neutrality, demilitarization, and recognition of the new territorial reality on the ground.

Last week, Trump also said that Russian President Vladimir Putin was easier to deal with than Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky.

Russian officials maintain they have always been ready to engage in peace talks, provided the discussions aim for a permanent solution that addresses the root causes of the conflict. Moscow has rejected any temporary agreement, explaining that it could be used by Kiev and its backers to rearm the Ukrainian military.

As President Donald Trump marks his first 100 days in office, National Right to Life praises the work the president has done on behalf of the right to life.

“We thank President Trump for his steadfast commitment to the right to life,” said Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life. “President Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance have been vital allies of the pro-life movement and the work the movement is doing to protect innocent preborn lives.”

Continued Tobias, “President Trump’s first actions in office include the critical undertaking of reversing the extreme pro-abortion policies of the Biden-Harris administration.”

Pro-life accomplishments of the Trump administration include:

REACH PRO-LIFE PEOPLE WORLDWIDE! Advertise with LifeNews to reach hundreds of thousands of pro-life readers every week. Contact us today.

• Enforcing the Hyde Amendment – Over the course of nearly five decades, the Hyde Amendment has saved an estimated 250,000 lives. An Executive Order signed by President Trump reversed Biden-era Executive Orders that blatantly violated the Hyde Amendment as well as other similar riders and amendments. The Biden-era Orders reversed were: Executive Order 14076 which mandated a whole-of-government approach of protecting unlimited abortions and imposing draconian measures on violations and Executive Order 14079 which recategorized abortion as “health care.”
• Ended the Federal Funding of Abortion Overseas – President Trump reinstated Mexico City Policy and the United States also reentered the Geneva Consensus Declaration. Co-founded by the United States in 2020 under President Trump, the Declaration is a coalition of more than 30 countries united in affirming the inherent dignity of every human being, the importance of women’s health without endorsing abortion, and the sovereignty of nations to protect life through their own laws.
• Working to Stop the Federal Funding of Abortion – President Trump stopped federal funds from being used to reimburse travel expenses for abortions by the Department of Defense, stopped the Department of Veterans Affairs from allowing VA hospitals to perform abortions and stopped the Department of Health and Human Services from paying for abortions for those who entered the country illegally.
• Strongly Supports H.R. 21, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act – the White House applauded the House of Representatives for its efforts to protect the most vulnerable and prevent infanticide.
• Restored Millions in Title X Funding to Oklahoma and Tennessee – the two states were previously cut off under the Biden administration for refusing to provide abortion referrals.
• Title X Funding on Hold to Planned Parenthood Affiliates – According to an HHS spokesperson, this is “to ensure these entities are in full compliance with Federal law and applicable grant terms, and to ensure responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars.”
• President Trump was the first president to attend the March for Life in person during his first administration. Though unable to attend in person in 2025, the president addressed the March via video and Vice President Vance addressed the March in person.

“The Trump administration continues to protect and defend innocent human life,” said Tobias. “We look forward to seeing more great things from President Trump and Vice President Vance.”

The post Here’s 7 Pro-Life Actions President Trump Has Taken During His First 100 Days appeared first on LifeNews.com.