Thursday, February 27, 2025

‘Homestead’ Is Proof Christian Films Are Getting Better — But There’s Room For Improvement


With ‘Homestead,’ Angel Studios has set out to embrace a kind of dark storytelling but with a Christian edge.



One of the most haunting scenes in Darren Aronosky’s controversial Bible epic “Noah” is when the Ark, freshly launched from its moorings into the rising floodwaters, rests calmly on the ocean surrounded by screams. The bodies of sinners cleave to rocks as the water rises and the screams are slowly snuffed out by God’s wrath. It’s haunting precisely because it captures the painful realities of God’s relationship with man, that man can deserve a horrific fate for his own decisions that is considered rightly just. It’s a scene that generates empathy for those screaming because the visceral fear is what we would feel if we happened to be on the wrong side of judgment.

It’s a scene that came to mind this past weekend watching Angel Studios’ recent post-apocalyptic film “Homestead,” which offers a harrowing look at a group of Christian survivalists hiding in an armed mansion in the Rocky Mountains after terrorists set off a dirty bomb in Los Angeles and seemingly spark World War III. Surrounding this massive compound are refugees and families begging for food and shelter from the chaotic outside world, which those inside cynically calculate is impossible to give without compromising their food supply. 

The post-apocalyptic genre is compelling largely because of the moral greys it forces people to contemplate. Video games and TV shows that place their characters in life-or-death scenarios gain tension from asking how far you’re willing to descend in such circumstances — often suggesting that it’s perversely fun to be uninhibited by the moral relaxing of the world. Are you willing to kill to save your own life? If two equal factions are fighting over a common macguffin to survive, who do you choose to save? 

Editor’s note: spoilers ahead.

With “Homestead,” Angel Studios has set out to embrace that sort of dark storytelling but with a Christian edge. The film’s characters directly correlate their mansion a metaphorical Ark against the rising floodwaters of the chaotic world, which the film further correlates by stretching the survival scenario for 40 days. However, the film ends with a twist after one of its leads is nearly killed in a standoff, with his wife choosing to open the gates of the mansion and trust that God will provide enough to survive. But in choosing love, the film’s final monologue posits that humanity’s surviving remnants sparked a golden age of love and fellowship by choosing trust over fear — tearing down walls and opening hearts and minds! 

Faithful though it may be, it is a horribly saccharine ending for a genre that generally abhors sentimentality. It’s a blind leap into the unknown with an abandon that makes the ending of “Megalopolis“ feel comparatively tame. It also marks an abrupt tone shift from a movie that had thus far mostly depicted harrowing and bleak situations that had resulted in characters being injured, killed, or traumatized. 

“Homestead” isn’t the most notable faith-based film to be released of late, with Angel Studios’ concurrently released “Brave The Dark” being a far more confident and touching work of cinema. Regardless, it is a major release from one of the most popular studios of the moment, and warrants an interesting question: Is this film evidence of the overall direction of faith-based films? Are faith-based films getting better? 

The genre of faith-based films, which my colleague Tyler Smith has done wonderful work exploring, has become one of the more fascinating developments in independent filmmaking in the past 20 years. Kendrick brothers films “Facing The Giants,” “Fireproof,” and “War Room,” Pureflix films like “God’s NOT Dead,” and others like Kirk Cameron’s “Saving Christmas” and “Heaven Is for Real” have created a new model for evangelical audiences to support fellow Christians and spread the word of God through the arts. 

However, these films haven’t built the strongest cultural reputation. The release of “God’s NOT Dead” in particular resulted in thousands of negative online reviews and response videos from online atheists and film critics decrying the film as condensing, shallow, didactic, poorly argued, and unwilling to dig into the challenging arguments underlying real life apologetics debates in a manner that would make Christian audiences uncomfortable. 

The lesson that faith-based filmmakers seem to have taken away from that general cultural consensus against those films was that they needed to reevaluate how they connected with the culture. In recent years, faith-based films produced by larger studios like The Blaze, The Daily Wire, and Angel Studios have leaned into making their films darker and edgier as a solution. 

Films coming out of these studios like “Nefarious,” “The Sound Of Freedom,” “Shut In,” “Bonhoeffer,” and “Deliver Us” are much darker than the faith-based films of a decade ago. They explore themes like demonic possession, human trafficking, abuse, sexuality, and political extremism, and have generally embraced varying amounts of gore, violence, and profanity. 

There are notable exceptions to this such as “Jesus Revolution,” “Sight,” “I Can Only Imagine,” “Surprised By Oxford,” and “Best Christmas Pageant Ever.” The popular faith-based show “The Chosen” has generally avoided extreme content as well. However, there is a danger in the contemporary genre to miss the forest through the trees. There is a risk of mistaking maturity for darkness, which has made many recent faith-based films feel superficial. 

“Homestead” is illustratively messy precisely because it neither commits to its metaphor nor digs into the full ramifications of its story. It can’t mix a gritty survival drama with a sentimental study about the power of love without compromising both. Real life contains both light and dark elements and knowing how to string them together is the act of storytelling itself. Mature storytelling balances and distinguishes between comedy and tragedy for the benefit of the reader or viewer. While this darkening is evidence of faith-based filming growing up, it is still stuck in its edgy adolescent phase for the time being. 



at

X22, Red Pill News, and more- Feb 27

 



at

Can Trump Make Europe Relevant Again?

Europe’s long vacation from history is ending. Or is it? 


Francis Fukuyama’s 1989 essay, “The End of History?” posited that liberal democracy had triumphed as the ultimate form of government, marking an endpoint in humanity’s ideological evolution. While Fukuyama’s thesis captured the optimism of the post-Cold War era, it overlooked the enduring complexities of global power dynamics.

Nonetheless, the belief that the era of war was over and a new, unbridled era of peace beckoned—guaranteed and backstopped by American military might—took root in the capitals of Western Europe.

The unfolding debate over European security—centered on Ukraine but extending to the continent’s broader role in global affairs—has torn this gossamer notion asunder once and for all.

It stands exposed as the flight of whimsy it always was.

History did not end with the fall of the Berlin Wall. Instead, Europe stopped paying attention to the existential threats that surround it.

The continent’s overreliance on American military might, and its complacency in the face of emerging global threats suggest that history, far from ending, is reasserting itself with force and urgency.

Europe’s Security Reckoning

Europe has enjoyed a decades-long holiday from history—content to let the United States shoulder the burden of its defense. As geopolitical tensions rise and America reassesses its alliances, that vacation is ending abruptly.

Since the end of World War II, Europe has relied heavily on American military might. NATO was formed as a collective defense against Soviet aggression, but it became less a partnership and more a security umbrella—one funded, staffed, and enforced by the United States.

For 80 years, Europe has benefited from this arrangement, spending far less on defense than agreed while funneling resources into expansive welfare states.

In 2014, NATO allies pledged to spend at least 2% of their GDP on defense by 2024. A decade later, only a handful have met that target. Germany—the continent’s economic powerhouse—spent years falling short. France only recently pledged to meet the target in 2024, while nations like Spain remain at the bottom, allocating just 1.28% of GDP.

America’s patience is wearing thin.

During his first term and now, President Trump made it clear: if Europe wants continued U.S. support, it needs to invest in its own defense. The message wasn’t subtle. Pay up or risk losing the U.S. security umbrella.

Trump’s bluntness forced action—tepid action, but still notable. Germany claims it will finally hit the 2% target this year, with optimistic projections suggesting spending could climb to 3.5%—though such forecasts remain speculative. As history has shown, political promises made do not always translate into promises kept, especially in Germany’s complex parliamentary environment.

Even so, seeing this shift as a genuine reawakening isn’t easy. Years of neglect and inconsistent investment have weakened most European militaries, which are incompatible with each other and lack the resources and readiness to meet today’s security challenges. A McKinsey report reveals a concerning trend: significant portions of Europe’s defense budgets are absorbed by administrative overhead rather than directed toward combat readiness.

Bureaucratic inefficiency won’t win wars—modern armies require weapons, ammunition, and advanced technologies to remain effective.

This problem isn’t limited to Europe. Another NATO member, Canada, allocates just 1.37% of its GDP to defense. Thus, the Canadian government seems gratified to leverage its location on the American northern border for national security.

Meanwhile, despite unveiling a record defense budget of $37 billion, Australia still struggles to meet growing security demands in the Indo-Pacific.

While our allies dither, China and Russia are forging closer ties, emboldened by perceived Western weakness and driven together by the West’s failed effort to isolate Russia.

The Waning Pax Americana

America’s role as the world’s policeman has stretched its defenses thin. As highlighted in The National Interest, the Pax Americana—a period of relative global stability underpinned by U.S. power—is waning.

The U.S. faces growing threats not only from China and Russia but also from Iran and North Korea. America can no longer afford to subsidize allies who refuse to invest in their security.

The Heritage Foundation bluntly states, “America’s allies must step up—before it’s too late.”

The U.S. military is strained, with little budgetary investment in critical munitions and weaponry, leaving American forces stretched thin.

National missile defense systems are under pressure and ill-prepared to counter hypersonic and advanced technology.

Trump’s second-term foreign policy reflects a new reality. The current president’s diplomacy is vastly different from any predecessor in the last half century or more: it is mainly transactional, pragmatic, and focused squarely on U.S. interests.

Allies that contribute to their defense are welcome partners; those that freeload are increasingly sidelined and isolated.

Europe at a Crossroads

Our European NATO allies face a stark choice. Continental nations can continue to rely on American military might, betting a future administration will reverse Trump’s course.

Alternatively, these nations can finally take ownership of their security.

Yet, as Washington demands more from Europe, it often misreads the continent’s shifting dynamics.

For decades, American foreign policy elites viewed NATO through a narrow lens—France, Germany, and whichever governments aligned with their left-of-center orthodoxy.

But that narrative ignores the rising influence of nations like Poland, one of NATO’s most committed defense spenders, and Hungary, whose right-of-center leadership makes it a pariah among some U.S. policymakers despite its growing regional clout.

Meanwhile, France and Germany face mounting instability at home. Populist parties are gaining ground, challenging the legitimacy of long-standing political establishments, despite efforts to shut populists out of governance.

If we’re serious about strengthening NATO, we can’t afford to ignore the new centers of power on the continent simply because they don’t fit outdated foreign policy narratives.

Will Europe Pay Heed?

Europe’s long vacation from history is over. The world has grown too dangerous for complacency. American foreign policy—now more transactional and interest-driven—demands more from its allies.

If Europe wants to avoid national security vulnerability, it must invest in its defense. That means meeting NATO’s 2% target and exceeding it to correct for chronic underinvestment.

President Trump has consistently stated his wish to make America great again by putting America first.

The question for Europe is whether it can forge a shared vision strong enough to make the continent relevant again on the global stage.

Simply put, will Trump Make Europe Relevant Again?



at

🎭 π–πŸ‘π π““π“π“˜π“›π“¨ 𝓗𝓾𝓢𝓸𝓻, π“œπ“Ύπ“Όπ“²π“¬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, π“žπ“Ÿπ“”π“ 𝓣𝓗𝓑𝓔𝓐𝓓

 


Welcome to 

The π–πŸ‘π π““π“π“˜π“›π“¨ 𝓗𝓾𝓢𝓸𝓻, π“œπ“Ύπ“Όπ“²π“¬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, π“žπ“Ÿπ“”π“ 𝓣𝓗𝓑𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 
man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 


at

Legacy Media Outlets Really Ought to Calm Down Over White House's Decision on Press Pool


The new Trump White House is not playing around. If you don't abide by the rules, you don't get what members of the administration have accurately said is a "privilege" of participating in daily briefings or White House events. The battle between the Trump administration and the Associated Press is front and center, though it goes further than that.

Last Friday, the AP sued after the White House, weeks before, denied the outlet a spot for the daily briefing and in covering a White House event at the Oval Office. White House Deputy Chief of Staff Taylor Budowich made an announcement about the outlet's future access, sharing that the AP's space would be open to other outlets. The decision stems from the AP refusing to refer to the once-named "Gulf of Mexico" as the "Gulf of America," though the outlet has had no problem changing words and spellings before. It didn't take long for a judge to rule against the AP on Monday.

The AP didn't merely lose in the courts, but in the court of public opinion as well. Not only was it revealed not long after Hamas' October 7, 2023, terrorist attack against Israel that the AP's journalists were embedded with terrorists, but the outlet continued to share pro-Hamas propaganda. This recently included the death of Shiri Bibas and her young sons, Kfir and Ariel, who were just 10 months old and 4 years old when they were murdered. Last weekend, the outlet spoke about Shiri and her children as having believed to have "died in captivity."


Among those most vocal in calling out the Trump administration for its steps against the AP, who even spoke about the outlet suing the Trump administration, is CNN's Brian Stelter.

His pinned post from February 12 remains a thread about Trump and the AP.


The White House's recent decisions aren't just involving the AP, though. On Tuesday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt announced that the White House Correspondents' Association (WHCA) will no longer have a monopoly on deciding which outlets get to ask questions. "All journalists, outlets and voices deserve a seat at this highly coveted table," Leavitt shared. "We are going to give the power back to the people."

Predictably, the liberal legacy media was not happy. The WHCA also released its own statement, even after it was silent when the Biden-Harris administration cut access for hundreds of outlets, especially conservative ones. They also filed a motion to submit an amicus brief on the AP's behalf.

SonofHas


Bringing this back to Stelter, back in March 2021, before he was let go from and then returned to CNN, the host of the ironically titled "Reliable Sources" did a segment discussing whether Fox News reporters should be removed from the press pool. He ranted and raved, just as many so-called journalists on the left do, about how Fox has "radicalize[d]."

Just as Leavitt has used such a word, Stelter wondered, "Should [Fox News] be afforded the privileges that come with news gathering?" His guest, David Zerwick of The Bulwark, an anti-Trump outlet, went on an even more unhinged rant against the popular news network.


CNN also put out a headline on Tuesday afternoon, not long after Leavitt made her announcement. "The White House is now deciding who can cover the president, reversing decades of precedent," it lamented.

It's not merely that the WHCA couldn't be bothered to put out a statement expressing concern about the silencing of conservative outlets, but the other associations it had during the Biden-Harris administration.

Recall how President Joe Biden had cards with reporter's names, outlets, and even their questions, as Townhall covered at the time. One such reporter was Courtney Subramanian, who is listed as a board member of the WHCA.



It's also not merely a matter of how the WHCA and legacy media outlets and "journalists" are reacting to the decision, but also whether Americans even turn to such outlets for news anymore. Cygnal President Brent Buchanan spoke to that in his daily takes on Wednesday.

Sharing coverage from The New York Times, Buchanan pointed to how Americans get their news. "The emerging electorate isn’t tuned into mainstream media. Over 60% of voters under age 55 get their news from a social media source. Over a third of Black and Hispanic voters turn to YouTube. For men under 55, 20% are listening to podcasts and 25% getting news from X. All these groups are who elected Trump," Buchanan aptly stated.

And why should these demographics, which shifted to the right and thus helped elect Trump last November, turn to a legacy media that hated Trump throughout his first term, the 2020 campaign as well as the 2024 one, and now that he's just started his second term?



at

How To Make Yourself Invincible To Media Info Ops


The most effective tactic for not getting duped by the media’s information operations is to understand that they happen.



If you read The Washington Post, you might have been concerned this week for the plight of the poor nature enthusiasts who are now at risk of locking themselves in the bathrooms at Yosemite National Park with no one to rescue them.

The media’s info op du jour is that the national parks are in disarray because President Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and DOGE are terminating “potentially thousands” of America’s beloved park rangers.

That sounds kind of bad, until you realize this is the kind of situation reporters are panicking over:

At California’s Yosemite National Park, the Trump administration fired the only locksmith on staff on Friday. He was the sole employee with the keys and the institutional knowledge needed to rescue visitors from locked restrooms.

If only one of the more than 1,000 people who work at Yosemite has the “institutional knowledge” required to unlock a bathroom door, Trump should maybe consider firing more of them and replacing them with people who know how to make copies of a key.

An upside-down American flag — which I was reliably informed was a symbol of Jan. 6 sympathies — hung from a cliff at Yosemite to bring “attention to what’s happening,” according to one of the employees who hung it. What is happening, exactly? Including the locksmith, 11 of the 1,151 employees who work at Yosemite during the winter were let go, as Chris Bray pointed out in a Sunday Substack post. I’m sorry for them, but a park losing 1 percent of its workforce isn’t exactly the next Watergate.

The national parks panic is one of several information operations the legacy press has launched over the past month of Trump 2.0. Another one from this week is the idea that Republicans are returning home to “a barrage of frustration and anger” from constituents who are supposedly very upset about Trump’s actions as president, a narrative which is easily contradicted by recent polling.

If you want to be able to spot the next info op, here’s what you need to know.

The most important thing to understand is not how the media deploy info ops but simply that they do it. If you are aware that legacy media outlets are not impersonal transcription services but active partisans with their own motives and ends, you will be much better at seeing through their tactics.

You are in an information war environment. Don’t believe me? Think about the media’s role in Russiagate. The Kavanaugh rape hoax. The smears about Pete Hegseth. They’re the ones who told you that the Hunter Biden laptop was almost certainly Russian disinformation, that Trump called American soldiers “suckers” and “losers,” that Covid definitely didn’t escape from a lab, that Trump wanted to execute Liz Cheney by firing squad, and that J.D. Vance was weird.

Whatever you hear from corporate media, you should assume until proven otherwise that the opposite is probably true. This small act of caution will save you untold embarrassment, as you wisely do some vetting before joining in the latest panic.

To do that vetting, it helps to study previous info ops that have been debunked and identify the red flags that gave away the game from the get-go. If you’re unfamiliar with any of the info ops listed above, start there. The first thing you should do is note which reporters and pundits participated in some of the worst ones and never trust those people ever again.

A great place to start is with the Russia collusion hoax, in which the media uncritically regurgitated sensational allegations that Trump was in cahoots with Russia in 2016, based on a dossier that was commissioned by the Hillary Clinton campaign and shopped to the FBI. Here are just some of the people who participated in that lie:

If you noticed Natasha Bertrand on that list, you might also remember she was the one through whom 51 “former intel officials” laundered their statement denouncing the Hunter Biden laptop as likely Russian disinformation. We now know, according to one of its signers, that the letter was crafted to help Joe Biden discredit reporting about the Biden family’s overseas influence-peddling that was sourced to the laptop.

Every time you read a news article, you should ask yourself: “Why might the writer want me to believe this?” When the legacy news media reached the sudden and unified conclusion that the Hunter Biden laptop was not worth paying attention to, on the eve of the 2020 presidential election, it was terribly convenient for their Democrat allies.

Everyone has his own agenda, and when a story affirms a reporter’s agenda, he will be more motivated to run with it. That’s one of the reasons so many people fell for the Trump-Russia collusion lie — it soothed their preexisting feelings about Trump and the 2016 election.

And don’t just pay attention to a writer’s motives; pay attention to his sources. The “former intel officials” who pimped out the laptop disinformation lie included deep staters like Obama-era Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and CIA Director John Brennan. Both men have lied under oath about spying on Americans and both used their positions in the intelligence world to help spread the Russia collusion hoax. Their signatures were a giant clue that the letter disparaging reporting about the Hunter Biden laptop was a partisan info op.

On the subject of sources, another great indicator that should ping your info-op radar is when an explosive story exclusively cites anonymous sources, especially when those anonymous allegations are refuted by on-the-record rebuttals.

That’s exactly what happened when Atlantic Editor-in-Chief Jeffrey Goldberg published a sensational, anonymously-sourced rumor in 2020 that Donald Trump had referred to soldiers interred at the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery as “suckers” and “losers.” The media ran with the tale despite the fact that 25 people — 14 of whom were with the president in France — went on the record refuting it.

One election cycle later, in October 2024, Goldberg tried the same tactic, accusing Trump of speaking disrespectfully of murdered Army Specialist Vanessa GuillΓ©n after meeting with her family and offering to help with funeral costs. GuillΓ©n’s sister, the family’s attorney, Trump’s chief of staff who was present for the conversation in question, and a handful of other parties all denied Goldberg’s story.

The ineffectiveness of last-minute lies about Trump during that election showed how much the media has been weakened. But until they are truly powerless, they will keep trying to claw back influence by deploying new narratives and supposed scandals.

The thing about info ops, of course, is that they’re only effective as long as people believe them. By understanding how their game works, you can make yourself invincible — and make the media that much weaker.



at

Elon Musk Broke a Woman's Mind So Badly That She Showed Up With Bombs at a CO Tesla Dealership


Teri Christoph reporting for RedState 

Even before Elon Musk aligned himself politically with President Donald Trump, he was a target of the unhinged left and its media mouthpieces for the very grave sin of purchasing Twitter (now known as X). They had grown so used to having Twitter as their personal online playground—and they, for years, gleefully got conservatives shadow banned or completely banned from the platform—that they went into full meltdown mode when Musk took ownership.

And not only did Musk take ownership of Twitter, he renamed it, restored banned accounts, did a pre-DOGE era purging of employees and, worst of all for the left, allowed freedom of speech to flourish there. Oh, and he exposed, via the Twitter Files, how the establishment conspired with the previous iteration of Twitter to bury stories that weren't favorable to Democrats.

This is when Elon Musk began the transformation from tech bro and electric car maker to public enemy. Musk himself said he was now Public Enemy No. 2, behind Donald Trump.

But, celebrities and others, as much as they disliked Musk, loved their Teslas and proudly drove them as status symbols. It's when he started showing up on the campaign trail with Trump last summer that minds began breaking in a way that we hadn't seen since the dawn of Trump Derangement Syndrome.

It's DOGE that broke them for good. 

How dare Elon Musk just march into D.C. and start looking under the hood of the federal government? The government is their OTHER playground, just like Twitter was back in the day. He took that away from them and now he was going to take the government, too? Well, that just won't stand. He must be stopped.

Some unhinged leftists, like Sheryl Crow, started with meaningless gestures like getting rid of their Teslas and congratulating themselves on social media. Others, as our own Nick Arama reported just last week, decided that violent attacks on Tesla dealerships was the right way to fight back, with one lot in Salem, Oregon, getting shot at and having a car set ablaze. Luckily, no one was hurt.

Shots Fired at Tesla Dealership in Oregon (and That's Not All)

Hurting people, however, seems to be the goal of the crazy pants left, and one woman, 40-year-old Lucy Grace Nelson, after vandalizing a Tesla dealership in Loveland, Colorado, in January, decided to up the stakes earlier this week and returned with explosives. This time, she was arrested by Loveland police and charged with three felonies before she could do further harm:

On Monday, February 24th, 2025, just before midnight, the Loveland Police Department arrested 40-year-old Lucy Grace Nelson. The arrest was based on probable cause obtained through an extensive investigation which started January 29th. This arrest comes after the Loveland Tesla dealership was vandalized several times, with incendiary devices discovered on the scene. On Monday evening, Nelson returned to Loveland Tesla while in possession of additional incendiary devices, along with materials attributed to vandalism. Detectives apprehended Nelson prior to further damage occurring.

Nelson is being held on a $100,000 band at Larimer County Jail.

How utterly broken and insane do you have to be to direct your rage at a business that really has nothing at all to do with Elon Musk? He doesn't own the dealership, so she's only hurting the employees and the community. 

Death threats, sadly, are nothing new to Musk; he's dealt with them for years. Does Lucy Grace Nelson honestly think her pathetic attempt at domestic terrorism is going to stop the Musk/Trump juggernaut? If anything, acts like this only strengthen them as more people wake up to the fact that a segment of our society is broken beyond repair.

Make asylums great again. 



at

♦️𝐖³π πƒπšπ’π₯𝐲 𝐍𝐞𝐰𝐬 𝐎𝐩𝐞𝐧 π“π‘π«πžπšπ

 


W³P Daily News Open Thread. 

Welcome to the W³P Daily News Open Thread. 

Post whatever you got in the comments section below.

This feature will post every day at 6:30am Mountain time. 

 
at