Faking Care For Minority Issues

 

There is much discourse in our modern culture about the topic of being woke. This movie is woke, that book is woke, the new T.V. show is woke, everything is woke, woke, woke. More people are probably aware of the term than what it really means. But most have the general ability to spot something that is woke. Essentially, woke refers to someone who is purports to be acutely aware, really obsessed, with the perceived or claimed injustices of a particular minority, and who is willing to change the rules to favour that minority. The term originally came out of African-American communities in the post-civil rights era in the United States and has now been greatly expanded to include a vast array of “oppressed” groups within western society.

The woke want to turn every genre or film, books and video games, they want to forge every institution, they want to craft every law and human rights document, and make every sermon, conversation, and broadcast, into an opportunity to push “the message” or their woke agenda. And people are getting increasingly tired of it.

The woke is,

as the Social Justice warrior, who is,

as the cultural Marxist, who is,

as the intersectionalist,

who has a much higher chance than average of having unnaturally coloured hair, a useless university degree, of using anti-depressants, and a voting record to the left of the Greens parties.

And they are also not new. In fact, Nicholas Berdyaev writes about these types in his letters, which have been compiled together into a book called The Philosophy of Inequality. He writes there about these people we could call wokians,

“People of your ilk, hostile to me, have given little thought concerning nation and the national problem. Ye are wont even to acknowledge the state on utilitarian grounds. But ye have proven incapable of penetrating into the intimate mystery of the national manner of life. True, you admit of the rights of oppressed nationalities and for these nationalities ye are ready to become quite extreme nationalists. Many of you tend to posture under your sign for the right of self-determination of nationalities. But this proves also, that to the mystery of national lifestyle you only can approach at it externally, that inwardly it is beyond you. You are ready to admit of the national lifestyle and national rights of the Jews or the Polish, of the Bohemians or the Irelanders, but amidst this, the national lifestyle and national rights of Russians ye never could admit. And this is because, that it is the problem of oppression which has been of interest to you, while completely uninterested by the problem of nationality. Ye proclaimed the right of the free self-determination of nationalities, not so much out of any interest for the nationalities themself and even not believing in the existence of such sort of realities. You merely need this "free self-determination" as a means of struggle for your political and social ideals, for an abstract equality and freedom, and nowise for the concrete national manner of life, not for a national flourishing.”[1]

Berdyaev identifies that these so-called advocates of justice are not really interested in justice for people of various oppressed groups. Rather they can see in the causes of these people a means of going after the perceived oppressor, in this case the Russian people. They see in these causes a means of upturning the order of the nations in which they seek political power. To consider the national rights of the Russian, in his context, is not even on their radar, because to do so would mean that they would have to pursue actual justice. But that is not what they really want, they really want to deconstruct the society in which they live and disenfranchise the majority. To do so they need a shroud to cover their true motives.

In fact, the concept of true justice is alien to them, as Berdyaev writes,

“Indeed, in the national lifestyle there is for You an ungraspable irrational mystery, hidden deep in the earth. Ye have never penetrated thence, ye always remained at the surface…No, your struggle…is merely the international struggle for levelling an equality, a struggle for man in the abstract, for an abstraction of man. Ye do not know the concrete man in flesh and blood, in race and tribe, the man national. Your struggle for the liberation of oppressed nationalities and for their equality is an international struggle, a geometric struggle, a struggle abstracting and tearing the national man off from the living countenance, from his maternity and fatherland.”[2]

If your tear a man from his “living countenance, from his maternity and fatherland” you weaken him, and you make him rather incapable of defending himself. That is their true strategy.

The wokians, these social justice warriors, these fake justice promoters, do not really have a deep regard for the people whom they say they are advocating for. They simply see in their plight a means of pushing for equality. The equality they want, and really the only type one can really pursue, is the levelling of all to a lower level of prosperity and well-being. Because to get to a form of equality you need to denationalize the oppressor and the oppressed, making them both less than they should be. Really, their goal is the destruction of national identity, not just for the “oppressor”, but for all, because inside a national identity is a framework for preserving its members. These people use justice as a guise for a very different goal,

“The "oppressors" of nationalities sometimes acknowledge them more, than do the "liberators". "They oppress" is of the living national man in terms of race and tribe, flesh and blood, whereas "they liberate" is of an abstracted geometric man…The secrets of every national manner of life merits sympathy. It is needful to get down into it even then, when the discourse goes hostile to us as a nation. The German people was our enemy and we had to fight against them. But the unrepeatable uniqueness of the German, the most intimate thing in the German spirit, the genuinely individual in the expression of the German visage always, even at the moment of struggle, seemed to me to merit of sympathetic consideration. In our international struggle for the liberation and equality of nationalities there is no feel of perception of national visages, there is not in it the love for the national image.”[3]

When Berdyaev says here that the oppressor often acknowledges the oppressed more than these “warriors for justice” he means simply this: they at least acknowledge the people they disagree with have a genuine and real identity. He is not commending the oppressor, he is simply noting that they at least acknowledge the people they oppress have a real national identity, or at least they often do. The Marxists did not even do this, they do not acknowledge this identity. Rather, they wanted to strip the man, the woman and the child, of their national identity and seek to raise them up again in their own image.

Berdyaev goes on to say,   

“K. Leont'ev was correct, when he declared your national politics merely a weapon of worldwide destruction and espied in it merely the triumph of democracy and cosmopolitanism. Your principles of the "right of the self-determination of nationalities", so bally-hooed about in the Russian revolution, is anti-historical an abstraction, of contrived theme which deny the unrepeatably unique reality, which is called nationality. Nationality cannot be severed off away from the concrete and its right cannot be merely a matter of abstract history, investigation.”[4]

These wokians, these anti-justice warriors, want to destroy what is unique in each people’s identity and then call it liberation, cries Berdyaev. In other words, he is observing that that their solution is worse than the problems they cry out about.

I read Marx and Engels, myself, many years ago. I read the Communist Manifesto twice and worked my way through a chunk of Das Capital. A lot can be said against these works and has been. Berdyaev is doing that in his letters in this book. But I would simply sum up my perception of their position as this: they sometimes correctly identify problems of inequality and injustice in society, and they propose solutions which are far worse than the problems they diagnose. That is what Berdyaev is saying here. These Marxists will use tyranny to solve problems and create far worse problems, because they deny the very nature of humanity. They rage more against creation than against injustice.  

He goes on to say that,

“Each nationality within the various periods of its existence possesses various rights. These rights cannot be merely watered down. There exists a complex hierarchy of nationalities. It would be thoughtless and absurd to compare the rights to self-determination of the Russian nationality and the nationality of the Armenian, the Gruzinian or the Tatar. It would be thoughtless and absurd to approach with the same abstract measurement the rights of the German nationality and the Spanish nationality at a given moment of world history. In the life of nations there occur periods of flourishing and periods of waning, periods of the high exertions of their powers and periods of weakness. And their rights to self-determination in these instances are varied. The question about the rights of the self-determination of nationalities is not some abstract juridical question, this is first of all a question biological, in the final end a mystically-biological question. It rests upon the irrational grounding of life, which is not subject to any sort of juridical and moral rationalisations. All the historical nationalities possess quite varied, unequal rights, and they cannot be put forth under the same pretensions. In the historical inequality of nationalities, the unequalness of their real weight, in the historical predominance now of some, now of other nationalities there is its own great truth, there is the fulfilling of a moral law of historical activity, so dissimilar to the law of individual activity.”[5]

In other words, Berdyaev is arguing here that every nation, and its current situation, should be evaluated as it is, and treated accordingly. Their issues should be taken on a case for case basis. Nations should not be treated as though they are always all in the same position, because they are not. By noting that they have ‘unequal rights’, he means simply that in some periods nations rise above others and then fall under the sway of others. He is describing what we see often occurring in history and in our world today. There is a rise and fall of nations, some become empires, some attempt this and fail, some have achieved this and then they fall. Nations have periods of greatness and then periods of humility. There are times when a nation should be encouraged to exercise its right to self-determination, and there are times when nations have taken this too far.

Berdyaev is saying something I have written about often: equality is a useless principle when dealing with human beings, human entities, and human institutions. Humans, and the nations derived from those humans, are so different, so diverse, and so varied in their ranges of experience, capabilities and experiences, that their needs and situations require great care and attention. Applying a broad-brush stroke approach to their issues by seeking to force them all into some form of equality is harmful, as they often need different things, depending on their current situations.  

Berdyaev here is writing about the very same kinds of people we call woke. The kinds of people who use the shroud of social justice to bring about social degradation. These ideas did not originate in modern universities, even though they have overcome such institutions. These ideas go back far earlier. I am sure we could find these evils at work in other nations in other ways. But we can at least trace this error back to the French revolution which unleased the falsehood of the cause of equality on the world.

Berdyaev is warning us that often those who make pretence of caring for so-called minorities often have far more nefarious intentions.

List of References

---

[1] Nicholas Berdyaev 1923, “Fourth Letter: Concerning Nation”, The Philosophy of Inequality, pp. 83-85

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Nicholas Berdyaev 1923, “Fourth Letter: Concerning Nation”, The Philosophy of Inequality, pp. 83-85

Pauline is Correct, Here

 

Pauline was 100% correct in what she said here. 100% correct. Domestic violence goes both ways.

If you look at the official statistics, about 1/3 of domestic violence victims are men. So, you could say that women are more likely to experience it. However, for too long feminists have been given free rein to define and apply their ideology to domestic violence policy. Hence, the data presents a false reality.

For one, men are far less likely to report it. Hence, we know the data is not representative of reality. But there is more. 

If you were to include how women use the state to violently abuse a man from which they want his property or something else, through false accusations, you would find those numbers would tick up. They may even begin to even out.

If you consider that historically, and still today, women are more likely to kill their children than men, and get treated leniently for it, then the numbers start to even out again,

"The leniency exercised toward women who have killed their relatives may explain why 15.9 percent of imprisoned female killers, but only 9.6 percent of male ones, are where they are for that offense. It may also explain why adult women are 24 percent more likely to kill their children than are men, and why under-age women are 32 percent more likely to kill relatives, small children included, than are under-age men.”[1]

Our culture has been so conditioned to think the other way, that some people will viscerally react to this fact being present. But when you consider that domestic violence, broadly speaking, is about violence towards family, and you consider that abortion is violence against family, then you can see that women are far more likely to kill their children, and be treated leniently, than men. In fact, this happens at such a high rate that the numbers completely flip in the other direction.

Feminists have been given free rein to cross off the list one of their chief evils against the family, abortion, and so forever skew the data. But an injustice does not disappear just because people handwave it away, it simply goes unnoticed by those who are happy to live under they lie.

Hence, though Pauline was likely not envisioning this final aspect when she made these statements, still, there is no doubt what she said is correct. The feminist media, and the feminist captured government and charity organisations, just refuse to speak the truth for a host of different reasons. Chief of which, in my view, is because to speak the truth would undermine so much of what they can do with their funding for and through these feminist organizations. Feminism has long been a chief tool utilized to undermine the family and create conditions on the ground that are favourable for socialists to step in and bring about enlarged government to “save-the-day”.

Note, Pauline herself was also once abused. She is not denying that some women live with dangerous men. No one would ever deny that. We all know women who have experienced that kind of terror. But many of us know men who have as well.

Women and children have been hurt in the home by evil men.

Men and children have been hurt in the home by evil women.

And the cry of the unborn should rise up above all of this to show that accepting feminist lies is truly deadly for many of our own countrymen. Feminists have just employed the state as their accomplices in this terror.

I want to say this: there is forgiveness in Christ for those who have been involved in these sins. It is important you know that. Repent and seek his forgiveness today. God is merciful and gracious.

But the outrage at Pauline over her stating the plain truth is simply a corrupt industry seeking to protect its funding streams.

List of References

---

[1] van Creveld, Martin. The Privileged Sex (p. 169). Kindle Edition.

On The Odyssey

 

What is more real?

Some people might say that being annoyed with the casting of a woman as a male warrior in a fantasy movie is silly, because it is fantasy and that includes cyclops and witches and the like. Now, I will just note here that The Odyssey is not fantasy, it is theological narrative, but we will leave that particular discussion for another day. Let's discuss the other issue.

What is more real? A cyclops or a woman being able to become a man?

Why, the cyclops of course. Every day of the week. Because the cyclops could be something that fits within our framework of existence. For one, it could have simply been a creature that came about as a result of inbreeding and genetic deformity, and made its way into legend by the process of passing on stories. Or maybe we just have not discovered the skeletons yet? Or maybe it is just a figment of human imagination? Either way, it still fits within a possible framework of existence, even if at the fantastical end. There is no law of nature that says a cyclops cannot exist. It is only our experience of having never seen one that causes us to doubt they do or did. But they don't break any laws of nature.

However, a woman becoming a man does break those, in an objectionable way. It is not a fantasy, so much as an inverting of reality. It is not too different to seeking to convince someone that a square can be round or a triangle can be rectangular. There is something truly off about it, precisely because it does rebel against the laws of nature in an objectionable way. It is not so much a product of imagination, but a product of perversion. Hence, it is less real and more to be objected to. The same the other way, if it is a man seeking to be a woman.

This is one of the core reasons why I don't want to watch a "fantasy" movie that casts a woman as a male warrior. I want my fantasy movies to help me suspend disbelief for a couple of hours, not throw me out of the movie in the very early scenes. Fantastical creatures are things of every child’s imagination. Inverting gender is different.

It is a shame, I actually like a lot of Nolan's work. But I won't miss not seeing this movie. It is about time I read the original story again, anyway.

Ironically, the original story contains a character that changes gender, Minerva more commonly called Athena, the goddess of wisdom. Greek gods, who were really demons, were known to do this often. They were capable of doing this because really they are ephemeral, that is they are not physical, they have no being and so flit between male and female at will. Nolan missed an opportunity to show how subversive the behaviour of ancient Greek gods really was. Instead, he decided to do something which will just throw many people out of his movie, before it has even really got going.

Be Prepared

 

We read in Revelation 6 these harrowing words,

"3 When He opened the second seal, I heard the second living creature saying, “Come and see.” 4 Another horse, fiery red, went out. And it was granted to the one who sat on it to take peace from the earth, and that people should kill one another; and there was given to him a great sword.

5 When He opened the third seal, I heard the third living creature say, “Come and see.” So I looked, and behold, a black horse, and he who sat on it had a pair of scales in his hand. 6 And I heard a voice in the midst of the four living creatures saying, “A quart of wheat for a denarius, and three quarts of barley for a denarius; and do not harm the oil and the wine.”

7 When He opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth living creature saying, “Come and see.” 8 So I looked, and behold, a pale horse. And the name of him who sat on it was Death, and Hades followed with him. And power was given to them over a fourth of the earth, to kill with sword, with hunger, with death, and by the beasts of the earth" (Rev. 6:3-8).

Peace ripped from the earth. Famine, sword, destruction, death, pestilence and inflation. That is what John talks about in Revelation 6. A lot of people make the mistake of thinking these verses only apply to the end of days. But this also happened in the first century, when Jerusalem was destroyed in the wars of Jews with Rome. Peace was taken from the land, war and destruction spread, famine spread, and inflation spread because of the war and famine.

Every major war brings death, disease, famine, and hunger. The difference is just the scale. Sometimes the effects of wars are localized. Other times they are globalized. If this war of the US and Israel against Iran continues, we will see this increasingly happen across the world. This is not end of times fear mongering. We may be in those days, we may not be. But if this war increases famine and death will wreck the region of the Middle East, who are not able to get supplies from abroad. And the rest of the world will feel scarcity to one degree or another as well.

World War 2 in Europe meant rationing for Australian families. Even though there was very limited fighting in Australia, and the fighting that occurred went on far away from where most Australian’s lived. This current war is devastating the region most of the world gets their energy resources from. You will feel it. So prepare.

Prepare cheap transport. Something that can run on limited fuel or energy.

Prepare spare food. At least a couple of weeks of buffer. At least.

Prepare to help people in need. Getting through hard times is as much about community as it is about preparation.

Prepare for crime waves as people suffer. Famine may or may not happen in somewhere like Australia. But have you seen the increasing homelessness. There are many underlying reasons for the current youth crime waves, one is the growing pressures of inflation.

Prepare for governments to try and solve scarcity with lockdowns, heavy legislation, and harsh rules.

Prepare.

If the war ends quickly, you might just be exposed to a bit more inflation. If it drags on, we'll be exposed to worse than that.

Pray God judges the evil forces on both sides who keep pushing this war and brings them to repentance. That may end the war quicker. Human pride will prolong it, increasing suffering. May God humble the proud.

 

Judeo-Christian?

Judeo-Christian...hmm

There are those who object to calling the Old Testament Christian. Even though Jesus Christ, the Messiah, is the fulfilment of the hopes of the Old Covenant. 

Faithful Old Testament believers:

Looked forward Christ. 

Hoped for Christ  

Knew their need for Christ, and

Believed in the Supremacy of Christ. 

Many of them even actually encountered Jesus (cf Isa. 6 and John 12, for one example). 

The argument is not without some merit, though. Because the term Christian was first used in Antioch in the days of the Apostles, in Acts. 

Ok. Let's grant that then.

But nor is Judaism a term used in the Old Testament, nor is it used for the Old Testament faith, until not long before Christ walked in Galilee. 

Abraham was not Jewish. Nor Isaac, or Jacob. Nor 11 of Jacob's sons. Nor Joshua, nor Job, nor Samson. Jonah wasn't either. Nor many other Old Testament prophets. Many were of the tribe of Judah, as Jesus is. But many were not. 

What is more, the Apostle Paul says in Galatians 1 that Judaism opposed Jesus and he repented of that false understanding of the law. Read it. It is what OUR bible says. 

If it is anachronistic to call the Old Testament Christian, it is doubly so to refer to it as Judaism. First, the term is not found in the Old Testament. Second it refers to a faith that Paul says rejected Jesus; the Lord of the Old Testament. 

Hence to say our Christian tradition in our societies is Judeo-Christian is neither accurate, nor helpful. And it actually is far worse than that. 

It confuses the ordinary Christian on the basic claim of Christianity that the Old Testament is about Christ; a core Christian teaching. And it ignores the fact that historically Christianity and Judaism claim to be very different. 

It is not surprising, then, that the term started to really gain any traction at all, 100 years after the West had declined in viewing itself as Christendom. 

That in itself is more revealing than anything else. The West had to forget its legacy, before others, in error, could reframe it.

God Gave Us Nations As Gifts

 

I have long written about why nations and nationalism are God’s gift to humanity. Indeed, I have even preached on this because the topic is an important part of biblical theology, and scriptures plays a key role in how God wants us to understand the role of nations in the world. You can read one of my old sermons here. Essentially in this sermon I show that God created nations as a restraint on man’s inclination for empire and dominance of all peoples. If this impulse for empire was not restrained then evil would flourish and crush all humanity.

It is fascinating for me to see that Nicholas Berdyaev touches on this protective nature of nationhood in his book The Philosophy of Inequality,

“The formation of an historical nationality is the struggle against the primitive chaotic darkness, it is the visage becoming distinct, of a countenance from out of impersonal and formless nature…Historical nationality is an attainment of cosmic being. And its destruction is a destruction of the cosmos, a return to chaos.”[1]

National identity is God's gift to humanity, allowing every people to live within familiar bounds, from which come a common order, common appreciations, and common ways, ruled by their own who respect those commonalities. In these boundaries human beings flourish. When these boundaries are taken down then chaos increases. Which is what we are seeing in our own western nations today.

This is why there is so much effort to enslave, and destroy the distinctiveness of the western nations, because it allows the rising of chaos. In chaos evil flourishes. It will flourish in either the spread of chaos, or in the rise of tyranny to restrain that chaos. Such is the nature of evil, it can be chaotically terrifying, or overly orderly and still terrifying. But in either case, it needs chaos to gain a foothold.

As diversity increases, so too do divisions. As divisions increase so does disorder. From this chaos emerges. 

Hence, multicultural societies feel less safe, are less safe, and need more oppressive laws to have a semblance of function. Empires are states that rule over diverse peoples or nations. They require centurions, or militarized police, not police officers in office clothes, as we once had.

These issues are as old as we have recorded history. You cannot destroy a nation's identity without creating increasing chaos. In that chaos anarchy or tyranny will find a foothold. What are we seeing in our nations today?

List of References

---

[1] Nicholas Berdyaev, The Philosophy of Inequality

Happy or Holy – Marriage

 

 

Did God make marriage to make you happy or holy? Many will argue Holy, but remember marriage existed before the fall, so it likely had the ultimate intention of joy before it was a benefit to our holiness. Here is part of my reflection on this in my upcoming book on marriage.

“People say marriage is supposed to make you holy not happy. I absolutely hate that statement with a passion. In fact, you would be hard pressed to find a statement Christians say which I reject more strongly. I don’t think I can stress this strongly enough. Joy is meant to be an intrinsic part of marriage.

We read in Psalm 45, a wedding Psalm, this, “13 All glorious is the princess in her chamber, with robes interwoven with gold. 14 In many-colored robes she is led to the king, with her virgin companions following behind her. 15 With joy and gladness they are led along as they enter the palace of the king.” (Ps. 45:13-15). Marriage is supposed to be a place of mutual joy. If it is not, you are doing it seriously wrong.

Proverbs 5:18-19 tells us, “18 Let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice in the wife of your youth, 19 a lovely deer, a graceful doe. Let her breasts fill you at all times with delight; be intoxicated always in her love.” “Rejoice”, “delight”, “be intoxicated”, these are words of joy, in fact, they are words of intense joy. Why do you think God gave Adam a woman? We know it was because there was no helper suitable for him. But it was about more than that. God wanted Adam to delight himself in the woman, and we know he did, because his immediate response was to sing the first song recorded in Scripture on encountering her, “22 And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. 23 Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man” (Gen. 2:22-23). This is at least poetry, in Hebrew, and likely indicates that he sung. Joy has been integral for marriage from the start. Let those who say it is not that important repent, and if they will not, let them enjoy their suffering in silence.

I could share more verses. Joy is meant to be a part of marriage. If you are not feeling joy in your marriage on a regular basis you do not have a biblical marriage. Marriage is meant to make you holy and happy. Holiness, is a means to joy, it leads to happiness, “1 Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers; 2 but his delight is in the law of the Lord, and on his law he meditates day and night” (Ps. 1:1-2).

If you are unhappy, that does not mean you have a right to leave, it just means you need to do some work to get back to the place where God wants you to be in your marriage: happy and holy. Don’t ever make these things opposites. True joy comes from following God’s ways.

And if you are struggling with joy in your marriage talk to someone who appears to be happy, and see if they can help you. Because you need help.”