Welcome to The Bridgehead!


What is The Bridgehead? A bridgehead is defined as, “A strong position secured by an army inside enemy territory from which to advance or attack.” In today’s culture wars, a bridgehead of truth and common sense is exactly what we need. As Ronald Reagan once said, “When you’re outnumbered and surrounded and someone yells ‘charge,’ any way you’re facing you’ll find a target.”Logo-CMYKThe Bridgehead does just that, bringing you cutting edge news, interviews, and insights from the frontlines of the culture wars, and engaging in a sweeping discussion on human rights. Featuring renowned authors, commentators, politicians, intellectuals, historical figures, and more, The Bridgehead talks truth and common sense in a culture where it is badly needed. Featuring conversations with everyone from Peter Hitchens, Mark Steyn, Joel C. Rosenberg, to Rwandan genocide survivor Immaculee Illibagiza, Holocaust survivor and Anne Frank’s step-sister Eva Schloss, and Nazi-hunter Efraim Zuroff, Bridgehead host Jonathon Van Maren takes a hard look at where our culture is and where we need to go.

Jonathon Van Maren
Jonathon Van Maren

Jonathon Van Maren is a popular speaker and writer who has been published in The National Post, The Times of Israel, The Jewish Independent, The Hamilton Spectator, LifeSiteNews and elsewhere, and has been quoted and interviewed by many prominent national publications as well as a wide variety of television and radio shows.

9 thoughts on “About

  1. Adam Slingerland says:

    The News, Anyone?
    Today, while surfing for something else, I ended up reading an interesting item which got me pondering, to the point that I don’t want to just move on and forget about it. In the Netherlands, a national newspaper was created in 1970 through the combined efforts of the Reformed communities. I was reading the presentation which Rev. J. Van Haaren gave in 1969 in order to emphasize the need for this. He spoke from 2Thess. 2, regarding the spirit of the age, which Paul saw as being of concern for a time which would be far into the future. He describes how the whole tone of society was to become passionately anti-Christ, and he pointed out that of course our information sources are a part of this.
    This summer, in Halifax NS, I was reading a local newspaper, and couldn’t help but comment on how refreshing it was. It was very similar to what newspapers looked like in the 1960’s. The news articles told the reader the unadulterated news. It totally refrained from telling the reader how to understand it correctly, or how it lined up with any agenda, liberal or otherwise. I hadn’t seen a newspaper like that in ages. Or any other media meant for the general public, for that matter. It is frustrating that it is almost impossible to navigate through the internet in order to screen out what is informative news.
    The purpose of this writing is to point out that there have also been positive, promising developments, and that these should be exploited. Perhaps the greatest of these is that things have gotten so bad that the world is beginning to realize it. President Trump’s spouting off at “fake” news may not be the sole reason, but it probably is helping. The other positive change is that TV is being abandoned as a news source; droves of people are “cutting the cable”. Almost no one subscribes to printed newspapers anymore. Besides, even the paid ones are working the same liberal agenda as the other media. Evidently, peoples’ news comes to them via the internet today. And I’m getting tired of having my intelligence insulted by MSN News every time I log on to my computer. My suggestion is that perhaps there is an opportunity here, and that the time is right.
    But it would have to be done by little people in a huge way. By which I mean, first, that the groundwork has to be laid by people who both understand the basics of this undertaking and are sufficiently gifted and skilled to perpetuate a dream. There are such people. Secondly, we would have to think on a massive scale; a slow startup would be catastrophic. It has to be immediately evident that the news is up to the minute current, complete and accurate – this is a tall order, calling for a massively scientific infrastructure before pretending to be ready. It would be like comparing Jonathan Edwards audience to Billy Graham’s (understand, I’m not getting into an exact comparison here). Even if 99.9% of Graham’s “converts” fell away after their initial “enthusiasm”, that still leaves more whom we will meet in heaven than could ever have been reached by Edwards. This is an age where things go viral easily.
    But what’s wrong with Fox News? Several things. Although they have a “better” perspective on news than all others, it still uses the wrong filters in order to not alienate anyone. As evidenced this past week, they are also walking a tightrope trying to appease advertisers. Worse, the worst part of all TV programming today, including Fox, is that the commercials are too frequently indecent for public consumption. Could Fox make a deal? Worth asking.
    Can we not find independent news sources online? Not really. Breitbart, for example, is only a “reactionary” news source; that is, it also is news which is filtered solely to respond to the liberal agenda. World magazine is good journalism, but it is only journalism. Could something be built on such resources? Maybe.
    What is really needed is a startup which immediately has the ability to bring all pertinent news together. This requires money. Massive amounts of money, investment funds. Perhaps the type of money which Trump has. And he probably isn’t the only tycoon who could see the merits of investing in a credible news source. All we would have to demonstrate to such investors is that there are enough advertisers to make it viable, some of whom are now left begging because of moral agendas and viewpoint issues. Having studied advertising over many years, I can assure you that money comes towards wherever the returns warrant it.
    Where do we fit into this picture? Whoever takes the first step has the most input into the tone of this undertaking. I do not recommend that we make this appear to be a denominational or inter-denominational venture. We have enough of those, and we have a different goal here, and it has to be on a vastly larger scale. We need to put a “Judeo-Christian” or a purely “fundamentalist” stamp and commitment to this news source. Unlike Breitbart and others, we have to work with no other apparent agenda than truthfulness, based on unbiased research. When we think of the issues which are being kept from us, and the truths which today’s news media won’t communicate to others, we cannot afford to be more specific. When I think of TWU, and how the entire Christian community is praying for them during these trying times, and helping them with their legal expenses, in spite of doctrinal differences, it can truly be said that the entire conservative community is able to pull together. Moreover, as much as we would like it to fit more snugly into our own comfort zone and our specific understanding of beliefs, we must be generous enough in our thinking to believe that aside from the 100 million North Americans who consider themselves to be fundamentalist, there are masses of others whose thinking can be corrected. It is well known that whenever there are different versions of the news circulating today, Al Jazeera’s presentation is trusted more readily than any of our common news sources. That role of being the credible source is going begging in our entire society.
    I’m not saying that this is reaching the right people. But perhaps, instead of just discarding this request, you can share it with others who could develop a passion for this possibility. If there is a void, as I believe there is, then someone has to be made to turn it into an opportunity.

    Adam Slingerland

  2. june Van Farowe says:

    I liked your discussion of world news and events. I wish President Trump would not continue to tweet. Sometimes he is mocked mercilessly. But you mentioned WORLD magazine out of Philedelphia, and you say,” World Mag. is good journalism, but only Journalism.” WHAT DO YOU MEAN by that statement?

  3. Ken Orr says:

    I am the secretary of Right to Life New Zealand, we too share your grief and pain at the betrayal of those who voted to allow for the murder of Ireland’s unborn. We are moved by Tim Jackson’s brilliant letter to the Irish nation and wish to seek permission to publish this letter on our RTL web site. May God bless your efforts to defend life. Please pray for our nation as we have a government who are determined to decriminalise abortion as they believe that the killing of an innocent and defenceless child in the womb is not a crime but a reproductive health choice for women.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *