The following is my response to a fellow watchman friend to do with some of our shared interests and concerns, and what we are watching from on top of our respective walls …

Thanks Simon, for the question regarding Melanie Phillips and your interesting “The crisis of American conservatism – Remarks by the Heritage president and JD Vance show the guardrails against Jew-hatred have collapsed – Melanie Phillips” share. This is going to be a longer response, reflecting on both of our thoughts, than normal, and it also addresses some of your other recent shares that thus far I haven’t yet responded to, so brace yourself …

Both of us take seriously our watchman remit, even if sometimes we see things differently, e.g. re. Israel, and we watch different things in accordance to where our interests lie (which is fine). I think the fact our watchmen priorities differ is part reason we don’t always respond to what each other posts. I generally do look at what you post even if I give up after a short time because it is not of interest, I already can anticipate much of the content or, in some cases, e.g. the Ms Phillips videos, I can hardly hear. But please continue to share. The truth of the matter is there is so much “out there” to watch, so many perspectives with at least some element of validity and there are only so many hours in the day. As for us, we need to be good stewards of our time, such that our praying should be just as, if not more, important as watching. The danger we both face is latching on to favourite pundits and rejecting those who say things we disagree with, even when making important points. Moreover, we are not modern day Elishas who knew what was said in the king’s bedroom, and those who purport to do so often lie and, even if they don’t, they don’t access to all the pertinent information. These days, I often find myself taking an “agnostic” position, as I don’t have all the facts.

I have long been aware of Melanie Phillips and her views, finding myself, generally, much in agreement with what she says. She is someone I greatly admire, and as often happens in the crazy days we live in, she is often ridiculed and vilified by them who try to shut down dissent by seeking to control the narrative. Not just regarding Israel, but the dangers facing Western Civilisation, she is articulate and perceptive in what she says. Sadly, most, probably all, of our MPs fail to get what she gets, and if nothing else she provides a service by waking people up to what is really going on and the dangers we face. However (there has to be one I’m afraid), I see her wrongly gravitating to the “giving Israel carte blanche because they are God’s chosen people” camp (although I’m not sure how religiously devout her Judaism is). Therein, lies the dilemma, I have often shared: one definitely should not be anti-Semitic but could be anti-(political) Zionist, while rejecting the views of much of Christendom that Israel has been replaced by the Church. The article you shared cites three people who don’t give Israel carte blanche to do what it wants (and may even be labelled anti-Zionist): Zohran Mamdani and Kevin Roberts (who I knew little about) and Tucker Carlson (who I’m long aware of and have mostly admired).

The truth is – I don’t know the whole truth, despite two decent, detractor friends regularly piling me with evidence that Israel (the “State of”) have been committing atrocities against the Palestinians (I still lean to the view that the Israeli government could have prevented October 7^th). But what I also know is that there are commentators, who I regularly check out because they often make important points not well enough made elsewhere, who agree. As part of my morning routine of checking out interesting videos on YouTube and the like, I came across one titled: “INTERVIEW: Has revolution broken out in New York?” (see here) featuring George Galloway. The thrust of his interview with Judge Andrew Napolitano concerned the recent elevation to mayor of New York of Zohran Mamdani. I was already made aware of some the reactions, typically on pro- and anti-Trump lines, but they instead steered a middle course, in line with their libertarian inclinations. They did agree that, with Mamdani’s election, along with elections results elsewhere favouring the progressive lobby, that there wouldn’t be the same appeasement to the powerful pro-Zionist oligarchy, including stopping pro-Palestinian demonstrations, that would have happened if a pro-Trumper had been elected instead.

While I see the election of Mamdani as a concerning development and indicative of cultural division I expect to intensify, along with Deep State involvement and other revelations, I am not fully decided where I stand on the demonstration matter but rather than spend time discussing the pros and cons and the extent it will lead to more anti-Semitism, I refer you to my recent “My review of Israel related matters and how this relates to Bible teaching and prophecy” (see here) article. With this I end (I’ve gone on enough, lol), and suggest we do what the good Book tells us: “Iron sharpens iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend”.

Shalom

John

PS: you may gather that I often ask Meta AI questions in order to better understand some of the issues. You might be interested in what I got asking two of those questions …

“Zohran Mamdani, the new mayor of New York City, has sparked both excitement and concern with his policies. Some people love him for his progressive stance on issues like housing affordability, immigration, and social justice. His campaign promises, such as freezing rent, providing free childcare, and making city buses free, have resonated with many New Yorkers, particularly young voters and progressives.

On the other hand, critics worry that his policies are too radical and might harm the city’s economy. They argue that increasing taxes on corporations and high-income earners could drive businesses away, leading to revenue losses and decreased economic growth. Some also question the feasibility of his proposals, citing concerns about funding and implementation.

Mamdani’s victory has also sparked debate about the future of New York City and its economic identity. While some see him as a beacon of hope for a more equitable and affordable city, others fear that his policies will drive away the very people and businesses that make the city thrive”.

…

“The Heritage Foundation is a prominent conservative think tank in the United States, and Kevin Roberts is its current president. He’s a historian and political strategist who’s been at the helm since 2021. Roberts has been instrumental in shaping the organization’s direction, particularly with Project 2025, a comprehensive plan to overhaul the federal government and implement conservative policies.

Roberts’ leadership has sparked controversy, especially after he defended Tucker Carlson’s interview with Nick Fuentes, a white supremacist. This move led to criticism and even the resignation of some Heritage Foundation staff members, including his chief of staff, Ryan Neuhaus. Roberts has apologized for his handling of the situation, acknowledging he made a mistake.

The Heritage Foundation has a significant influence on conservative policy, with ties to the fossil fuel industry and a history of climate denialism. Roberts has expressed skepticism about climate change and advocated for reducing environmental regulations.”

For the benefit of readers, besides your good self, the Melanie Phillips post read:

Jews being persecuted; Rochester Chronicle, 13th century

As conservative America reels from yesterday’s victory by Zohran Mamdani in New York and Democrat victories in the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial elections, its own internal crisis has accelerated.

The Heritage Foundation’s president, Kevin Roberts, has attempted to quench the firestorm that erupted after a videoed statement he made last week. It shows no sign of abating. Nor should it.

In his statement, Roberts staunchly defended Tucker Carlson. The social media host with a vast following is considered by Heritage to be a close friend. But Carlson regularly platforms rabid bigots like the white supremacist, pro-Nazi, pro-Stalin freak Nick Fuentes, as well as hosting other Holocaust deniers, Nazi apologists and Israel-demonisers.

Far from calling Carlson out for staging this grotesque carnival of defamation and incitement, Roberts shockingly called out this dangerous individual’s critics as a “venomous coalition” who were sowing division by attacking him.

Fuentes has claimed that the Jews are “responsible for every war in the world” and are “running society”. He has also said they should be wiped out. “When we take power”, he ranted, “the Jews will be needed [sic] to be given the death penalty”.

Yet Roberts merely said that he “didn’t agree” with Fuentes, that he found some of his views “deplorable” and that people should “challenge those ideas in debate”. What kind of a person says he “doesn’t agree” with calls to murder Jews, as if this is a debating point in an egg-head Heritage seminar? What kind of person thinks deranged and paranoid theories about global and malevolent Jewish power can be debated?

Roberts pledged to fight antisemitism “in all its forms”. This somehow didn’t include the form taken by a vicious antisemitic nut-job — who apparently shouldn’t be fought but argued with, because this individual is on the right rather than on the left.

In failing to acknowledge that antisemitism on both left and right should be unequivocally fought rather than indulged, Roberts is behaving in the same tribal, sectarian way as leftists who refuse to believe that their side can ever do anything bad while “the right” can never do anything good.

But then he made some deeply troubling remarks of his own about Jews.