In this episode, we explore one of the most dangerous illusions in modern politics: the belief that evil only exists on the other side.

Drawing on theology, history, and political philosophy, this episode examines how moral certainty — not malice — so often becomes the gateway to corruption. When people become convinced that their cause is righteous, their opponents irredeemable, and their intentions pure, restraint disappears and power begins to justify itself.

From cancel culture and political purges to surveillance states and authoritarian impulses, the same pattern emerges again and again: both the Left and the Right fall prey to the same temptation. Each believes that if power must be wielded, it will be wielded responsibly — because it is in the “right” hands.

Using biblical imagery, historical examples, and a reflection on the enduring symbolism of Tolkien’s One Ring, this episode argues that the greatest political danger is not evil itself, but the belief that we are immune from it.

This is not an argument for moral relativism or political apathy. It is a call for humility, self-examination, and the recognition that no movement, ideology, or party is beyond corruption.

Because while God may belong to neither party, the devil has always been willing to play both sides.

Why did Adolf Hitler despise Christianity but tolerate — and even benefit from — atheism? In this episode, we explore the historical and philosophical reasons behind Hitler’s hostility toward the Christian faith, and why Christianity posed a far greater threat to Nazi ideology than unbelief ever did.

Drawing on historical records, speeches, and Nazi policy, this episode explains:

• Why Christianity threatened Hitler’s vision of absolute state power
• How Nazi ideology sought to replace Christian morality with racial and political loyalty
• Why atheism posed no obstacle to authoritarian rule
• What this reveals about the relationship between faith, freedom, and tyranny
• How these lessons still matter in modern political debates

This episode challenges the lazy assumption that religion is inherently dangerous to society and instead argues that Christianity, in particular, has historically been one of the strongest barriers to totalitarianism.

🔗 Read the full essay:
https://conservativeopinion.com/why-hitler-hated-christianity-but-not-atheism/

In this episode, we explore what atheists can learn from the way lawyers and jurors actually reason about evidence.

Drawing on a real murder trial, we explain how rational judgment is rarely about scientific certainty and almost always about weighing cumulative evidence. Courts do not demand laboratory proof; they demand reasonable conclusions. Yet when the question turns to God, many atheists suddenly impose a standard of certainty that no courtroom—and no human life—could ever meet.

We examine how evidence really works, why dismissing individual facts in isolation is a category error, and how the legal concept of burden of proof exposes a fundamental weakness in modern atheistic arguments. We also clarify the persistent confusion between belief and faith, showing that Christianity does not ask us to believe without evidence, but to follow evidence to its conclusion—and then decide whether we are willing to trust what that conclusion implies.

This is not an argument against reason or science. It is an argument for using them honestly. Faith, properly understood, does not begin where evidence ends; it begins where trust becomes necessary.

In this episode, we examine the arrest of Nicolás Maduro and the predictable outrage that followed—outrage framed around sovereignty, regime change, and accusations of American overreach. Beneath those slogans, however, lies a far more serious set of questions.

What does sovereignty actually mean when a regime actively facilitates transnational crime? Can a government that voids legitimate elections, harbors criminal networks, and functions as a narco-state still claim the moral protections of international law? And should this moment be understood not as imperial adventurism, but as the reassertion of American influence in a world where rival powers are consolidating and aligning?

In this episode, we argue that Venezuela is not Iraq, that “regime change” did not begin with the United States, and that democracy can fail from within when institutions are hollowed out and economic power is centralized in the state. We also explore the legal authority behind the action, why the ultimate judgment depends on what happens next, and how this episode fits into a broader strategic contest involving China, Russia, Iran, and the Western Hemisphere.

Finally, we note an often-ignored disconnect: the loudest condemnations tend to come from Western commentators speaking on behalf of Venezuelans, while many Venezuelan-Americans—especially those who fled the regime—appear far less troubled.

This is not a defense of force for its own sake. It is an examination of legitimacy, accountability, and whether American retreat leaves a vacuum filled by far worse actors.

Socialism loves to sneer at “trickle-down economics,” promising instead warmth, equality, and fairness through collectivism. But everywhere it has been tried, socialism has produced the very system it claims to oppose: centralized power, rationed scarcity, and resources trickling down from the state to the people by permission rather than right.

In this episode, we examine what might best be called trickle-down socialism—an economic and political model that condemns hierarchy while requiring it, denounces concentrated power while perfecting it, and promises compassion while delivering coercion. From the myth of government accountability to the contradictions surrounding banks, corporations, and central planning, this episode explores why socialism cannot escape its own logic.

We also confront the familiar accusation that conservatives want to “go back to the 1950s,” and ask the obvious question: which 1950s? The America of growth, opportunity, and abundance—or the gray world of ration cards, queues, and enforced equality?

This is not a defense of capitalism without conscience. It is a critique of an ideology that survives by forgetting its own history, dismissing its failures, and presenting itself as eternally new despite a legacy of scarcity, repression, and human cost.

In modern progressive politics, policy arguments often take a back seat to something far more powerful: moral authority. Bernie Sanders is rarely treated as a mere politician. He is treated as a figure beyond reproach, a vessel of righteousness, a kind of secular saint whose intentions sanctify his ideas and whose critics are dismissed as heretics.

In this episode, I examine how Sanders has come to occupy a quasi-religious role in American political life, why so many wealthy elites and celebrities gravitate toward his moral posture, and how politics increasingly mirrors religious devotion without the accountability, humility, or limits that genuine faith demands.

This is not an argument about tax brackets or healthcare spreadsheets. It is an argument about belief, moral absolution, and what happens when politics becomes a substitute for religion.

Jordan Peterson defends Christianity more eloquently than most believers—so why won’t he call himself a Christian?

Jordan Peterson has spent years circling Christianity—defending it, studying it, admiring it, and insisting that Western civilization cannot survive without it. Yet when asked a simple question—Are you a Christian?—he still refuses to say yes.

Why?

In this episode, I explore why Jordan Peterson, despite his deep respect for Christ and the Bible, still won’t call himself a Christian. The answer, I argue, is not primarily intellectual. It’s existential.

Christianity does not merely ask to be understood. It demands surrender. It does not invite us to master it, but to be mastered by it. And for someone whose life has been built on meaning, responsibility, and self-authorship, that final step may be the most difficult of all.

This is not an attack on Peterson. It’s a meditation on a tension many modern people feel: wanting the moral architecture of Christianity without the personal cost of confession and submission. And it’s a reminder that faith is not something we analyze from a safe distance—it’s something we eventually have to step into, or walk away from.

Fascism is almost reflexively described as a “right-wing” ideology. The label is repeated so often that it has come to feel settled, unquestioned, and morally convenient. But is it actually correct?

In this episode, I argue that this common classification rests on a fundamental category error. Fascism is not an ideology of the Right, properly understood, but a form of totalitarianism defined by the concentration of state power and the subordination of the individual to it. Far from arising out of an excess of liberty, fascism emerges when liberty collapses and the state becomes supreme.

This is not an attempt to smear political opponents or relitigate partisan battles. It is an exercise in conceptual honesty. By examining the left-right political spectrum, the nature of centralized authority, and the shared structural features of fascism and communism, this episode challenges listeners to rethink how political ideologies are labeled—and why accuracy matters.

Mislabeling fascism does more than distort history. It corrodes the language needed to defend a free and equal society grounded in ordered liberty, restrained power, and the rule of law.