The Alien Delusion

 

*

*Just don’t throw chairs in your evangelism, it is not wise.

Could the alien revelation be the delusion people were waiting for? As some have noted (although they clearly wrote their post with AI, still let’s reflect on the situation):

“THE RELIGION OF THE ALIEN AGE

How Alien Disclosure and the Antichrist Forge the Final Global Faith…

…The Reframing of Every Religion Under a Cosmic Banner

Alien disclosure does not destroy religion — it absorbs it.

• Angels become “higher intelligences.”

• Demons become “malevolent non‑human entities.”

• Prophets become “early contactees.”

• Miracles become “advanced technologies.”

• Scriptures become “encoded transmissions.”

• Ancient temples become “landing sites.”

Every faith is reinterpreted as a fragment of a larger cosmic revelation. The world is told:

“All religions were reaching for the same truth. Now the full truth has arrived.”

This is the universalizing mechanism of the final deception.

It is the spiritual equivalent of Babel — not the confusion of languages, but the unification of them.

The Antichrist as the Fulfillment of Every Tradition

Once all religions are reframed as incomplete cosmic encounters, the Antichrist steps forward as the center of the new story.

He becomes:

• the Messiah of Israel,

• the Maitreya of Buddhism,

• the Mahdi of Islam,

• the Kalki of Hinduism,

• the World Teacher of the New Age,

• the “chosen representative” of the cosmic visitors…

…The convergence produces a religion with six defining features:

1. Universalism — all paths lead to the same cosmic source.

2. Evolutionary spirituality — humanity is ascending to a higher state.

3. Extraterrestrial cosmology — the universe is populated with guiding intelligences.

4. Technological mysticism — miracles are framed as advanced science.

5. Mandatory unity — religious exclusivity is dangerous.

6. Allegiance to the Beast — loyalty becomes a spiritual duty…

…The Continual: The One Faith That Cannot Be Absorbed…”

What is the faith that cannot be absorbed? Christianity. We know this will be the case. Sure, there will be attempts from false teachers among the Church to seek to accommodate Christianity to the new one world religion. That is nothing new. Whatever pagan ideology is put forward, there are always those who are quick to want to subvert Christianity with it; the Churchians. But true believers will aways stand against this.  

Because of this, orthodox (little ‘o’) Christianity will be cast as the villain, the threat to one world peace, the opponent to the unification of belief, and the roadblock to progress. In many ways it will be the French Revolution or Bolshevik Revolution all over again. The sins of Christians will be magnified, and the exclusive claims of Christianity will be reframed as arrogance, and they will seek to turn the common man and woman against the believer.

Paul warns us about the strategies of the coming antichrist,

“8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, 10 and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, 12 in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness” (2 Thess. 2:8-12).

He will use all sorts of apparent or actual supernatural power to deceive. Even Pharoah’s magicians could turn staffs into serpents, remember. Many will fall for the antichrist’s supernatural deception. Many have fallen for this in the past.

Yes, I know there have been many antichrists, John himself tells us this, “18 Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come” (1 John 2:18). But he appears to strongly imply there will be a final boss as well, as does Paul, and many others. In fact, I see no good reason in scripture to not believe there will be a series of boss fights, and then the final boss fight.

Could this “alien revelation” be the strategy?

It could be, and it could also be another strategy that fails. Just like past attempts for evil to take world power have failed. Only the Lord God knows the hour and time of the end, the devil does not. So just because he is attempting something through his servants does not mean that it will succeed and this will be the final boss encounter. But be vigilant. And study the strategies of the antichrist powers, they are very consistent and laid out in scripture, as I discuss in this article you can read here.

There is nothing in the Bible that should shake a Christian’s faith if aliens are shown to exist, or at least it is claimed that they do. The Bible is clear that human beings are not the only intelligent beings which exist outside the triune God. Angels and demons exist, in fact, the Bible even refers to “extraterrestrial beings” in a manner of speaking.

For example, David refers to the “benoy elohim” or heavenly beings several times in the Psalms. One example is Psalm 29, “1 Ascribe to the Lord, O heavenly beings, ascribe to the Lord glory and strength. 2 Ascribe to the Lord the glory due his name; worship the Lord in the splendor of holiness” (Psalm 29:1-2). The word extraterrestrial means, “of or from outside the earth or its atmosphere.” The “sons of God” mentioned in Job 1 and 2, the beings we would call archangels, among which exist both evil (Satan) and good versions (Gabriel, Michael, etc.) are by definition “from outside the earth or its atmosphere…” They exist in other dimensions, they can appear in this dimension, they are not limited in their movement like human beings are. It is not outside of the realm of possibility that such beings on the evil side would seek to deceive human beings about their origin and intent. This is precisely what happened in the past with their claims to be false gods.

Same trick, slightly different costume. A reframing of an old deception for a technological age. One where the ground work has been well laid, as well.

However, we know that there is no force from this world or outside our world that will convince genuine believers to deny Christ…well, unless you believe that a believer can reject Christ. But that is a discussion for a different post. Christians will stand firm in their belief in Jesus, they will reject false messiahs, and will be cast as the villains for doing so. This is a tale as ancient as the Church itself.

The point is, many and varied deceptions will be thrown at us in our lives. This might be the next one. It might simply be the product of fringe ideas on the internet and in the media. But as Christians it is very simple for us to prepare how we should respond to this possibility. We simply need to be ready to tell any being that denies Jesus Christ is Lord, that they should repent. It is that simple.

Hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, friends, more lies are coming. We might not be exactly correct about what they will be, but we know more lies are coming. This is a world of lies.  

How To Judge Possible Rate Rises

 

I am not a financial advisor, so please take my advice with a grain of salt. However, I was having a conversation with someone once about why I saw rate rises coming, and why I believed they would be the trend up or relatively high for some time, and he said, “Why did you not tell me this?” I said, “Would you have listened?” He just looked at me...we both knew the answer.

However, I thought it might be helpful me to note how I approach analysing what is happening in the financial markets, so that my family can be best placed to deal with different challenges in the economy, especially regarding rate hikes.

The Australian Reserve bank has only one approach to inflation, only one: increase rates.

Hence, you should not follow the financial analysts who seek to predict whether or not rates will rise one month, or another.

Rather, you should take note of what is happening with inflation. If inflation is strong. Then rates will rise. But more than that, take note of the things that cause high inflation. Things like:

- High Immigration.

- Increased government spending.

- Wars in fuel rich regions. Like the Middle East, or Russia. These regions produce so much fuel any war in them will cause economic pressure, increased fuel prices, and therefore inflation.  

- Housing stimulus packages.

- Significant interference in the economy (like when they shut things down during the big cough).

- Labor governments being in power (this is not a pro LNP point, it is just true that Labor governments tend to spend more and increase immigration more, both of which cause inflation. But LNP have been known to do this too, at times). But Labor’s general approach is to stimulate the economy in various ways which generally causes higher inflation.

If you follow these causal factors you will have a rough idea of when rates are going up and when they will go down. And when you see these factors beginning, or advancing, then you can lock rates at the low and ride out the high with fixed rates.

The cool thing is, if you have decent equity on your home, then if you lock and economic factors change, then you can simply refinance with a new bank. This is much harder if your loan is new, or you just upgraded your house for a bigger loan. But if you have done that and locked rates you have a fixed payment and you can budget better.

The point is: All the things that cause inflation are running rampant right now, and have been for some time, with no indication that this will stop. Hence, you can look at the macro picture and have a general idea of where things are headed in the medium term.

I would never recommend playing the variable game. There are very few, if any, advantages.

Also, pay down your debts as fast as you can. I really believe things are going to get rockier. 

 

Does Trump Understand This?

 

I have no idea what Trump understands or does not understand. Unlike many people online I do not consider him to be as dumb as is often claimed by some, nor as brilliant as is often claimed by others. For a long time he had good instincts about how to get support from a broad base in society. He has shown good instincts on domestic policy, and even some of his international excursions have worked out better than some predicted they would. But I think the old adage, “the seeds of defeat are sown in victory” apply to this situation with Iran. Things he had done well have caused him to over extend and land the US in a much more difficult situation.

With Venezuela he got away with a bold and, in the modern mind, unique style of strike. It was not as unique as some think, if you read the Old Testament there are very similar actions taken by other nations. For instance, at one point both Syria and Samaria plot to take out the leader of Judah, so that they can get Judah on board with their foreign policy (Isa. 7:1-9). However, in the context of recent US foreign policy it was quite unique, and the quickness with which Venezuelan ships started taking their oil where the US and its allies would prefer, really even got many critics to support the actions after the fact. But it has caused his most avid supporters to overestimate his abilities.

Iran has proven a much harder nut to crack. There are various reasons for this. The ancient nature of their society. The fact that for decades now they have forged a relatively successful economy under sanctions. The ideological nature of their leadership which makes it far more impervious to pressure. The distance from the US to the Middle East. Iran’s placement in the world trade system and its ability to turn around and put sanctions on the much of the world in response to attacks. The US’s intricate relationship with Israel, which makes it harder for the US to act completely in its own interests (though I suspect this relationship is being strained by this conflict). And various other factors make this situation much harder to handle. But there is also one other, very significant reason why this nut is much harder to crack.

Trump’s policies towards Iran are accelerating the very fracturing of the world trade system that many of his supporters argue that he was seeking to protect with this war. Some argue he was really seeking to address the city of London’s hold on global trade through ancient legal structures, and remove the United States from under the sway of these influences. There may even be some solid reasons to agree with this analysis. The problem is that the city of London’s hold on trade was already declining, because as many analysts have observed, the world is bifurcating into an economic zone centred in Asia which includes China, its allies and its satellites, and another zone which includes much of the historical west led by the USA, along with its allies and satellites, this is where the city of London still has power as well. In other words, if the city of London and the Trump administration were competing, they were competing over and already shrinking influence.

This is the part of the analysis many people are not factoring in. They think it is Trump verse the globalists. Others think Trump has been co-opted by the globalists. But there is no reason to be so binary about how world power works, there are clearly many factions and centres of power, and they are competing with each other. The Western centres of power are increasingly losing their dominance.

This can be seen in different ways, but one of the core ways is how nations on the Asian continent are increasingly seeking to build more land trade routes. I touched on this as being one of the real reasons behind Israel and the US’s attack on Iran back in June 2025,

“Iran is succeeding to grow its economy, and it is succeeding in a way that it should not be under some of the harshest sanctions in the world. It is succeeding in a way that presents a challenge to the US dominance of the world economy, and the US/Israeli dominance of the Middle East.

You have probably heard of the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative? This is China’s attempt to create a trade network all across the world, with interlocking infrastructure to increase China’s trade power in many regions of the world. But did you know how closely China is working with Iran to achieve this trade dominance in the Eurasia? China and Iran have jointly created a successful China-Iran railway corridor, and guess what, it just went operational,

“On May 25, 2025, the first freight train from Xi’an, China, arrived at the Aprin dry port, Iran, marking the official launch of a direct rail link between the two countries. This new logistical artery significantly reduces transit times (from 30–40 days by sea to roughly 15 days by land) yielding a direct impact on transportation costs.”[1]

This railway is part of a much larger and broader East-West Corridor that is designed to link China, physically, with a trade route directly to Africa, and to Europe, without having to use the more traditional sea trade routes. Think of it as a new railway-based silk road, the very concept that China implemented in the past to make itself an economic powerhouse is previous eras.”[1]

The United States, along with Britain before it, and France and Holland before that, built their wealth and their power around being sea powers. This is one of the reasons that after World War 2 the dominance of the world system moved so readily towards the United States. During the war America had so focused on sea power to crush Japan, that its navy remained unquestionably the dominant navy. The Soviet Union had the chance to do what China is now doing and turn its place on the Eurasian continent into a power that could bypass US controlled sea lanes, but the corrosive nature of communism made it quickly collapse from within. However, China is a much more resilient nation, has learnt from the mistakes of the Soviets, and is seeking to build its influence in a much slower and methodical way, while the US galivants around the world using a combination of force, threat of force and economic warfare to harangue everybody to stay in line. However, this influence is waning, as wealth concentrates in Asia.

This war is quickening the rise of the Eurasian continent, emphasis on Asia, and now Pakistan is following the approach of China. As Simplicius notes,

“From the above—Pakistan has created “an overland sanctions-resilient corridor [to Iran] capable of reshaping regional trade geometry”:

Pakistan’s decision to formally open its territory for third-country goods bound for Iran marks far more than a customs adjustment, because it inserts Islamabad directly into one of the most strategically sensitive logistics contests now unfolding across the Middle East and the northern Arabian Sea.

At a moment when the Strait of Hormuz faces severe disruption, Iranian ports remain under intense maritime pressure, and more than 3,000 Iran-bound containers are stranded at Karachi, Pakistan has effectively created an overland sanctions-resilient corridor capable of reshaping regional trade geometry.

By activating Gwadar, Karachi, Port Qasim, Taftan, Gabd, Quetta, Khuzdar and Ormara as integrated transit nodes, Islamabad is not merely facilitating commerce but redefining force posture, strategic access, and geopolitical leverage between Washington, Tehran, Beijing, and the wider Indo-Pacific maritime system.”[2]

Pakistan is taking the opportunity this war presents to restructure how it trades with Iran through land routes. This is the kind of situation that sea powers fear, one where land-based powers can simply ignore them, or largely work around their influence and power. Britain worked hard for centuries to support rising powers in Europe to challenge the dominant land powers, in an effort to stop any one continental power becoming too dominant. This policy eventually culminated in two of the worst wars in history, WW1 and WW2, where the size and power of the British Empire drew most of the world into their final two attempts to maintain their dominance. World War 1 was indecisive, and World War 2 ended with Britain in steep debt and then decline and the US, a sea power, and the Soviet Union, a land power, squaring off for dominance of the world system.

While the US was dominant over the West for much of that time, it really only became the true singular world power when the Berlin wall fell, and with it the Soviet empire. But rather than maintain order and stability, the US has engaged in foreign war after foreign in the Middle East severely weakening its prestige in the world, and incentivising the switch to land based trade in the Eurasian continent. In other words, Trump’s efforts to stop what is happening are accelerating the bifurcation of the world system. He may have intended to fight a different type of war, but the Middle East is not known as an ancient quagmire for empires for no reason. 

Even Ukraine can be seen as part of this trend. Prior to the Ukraine war Europe’s dependence on Russian resources was increasing, and this would have concerned the powers that reside in Washington. Most of the world, and most of the wealth of the World is concentrated in Europe and Asia. If that continental block was able to draw together, they would be able to exchange wealth and grow prosperous without any real need for US naval power or influence. Empires do not like seeing themselves become obsolete.

It is for reasons like this that I analyse the Iran war through the lens of collapsing US dominance and growing Asan dominance. Or in other worlds, through the historical lens of the rise and fall of empires. The sad thing is the rise of Asia came about as a direct result of Anglo-American free trade policies that moved technology and industry to that region. And now, whether he knows it or not, Trump’s policies are accelerating the very thing that Anglo-American powers have sought to avoid for centuries: a European/Asian trade network which they cannot dominate. I do not see them letting this happen without fighting hard to stop it, therefore, we can conclude that there are worse wars to come.  

List of References

---

[1] https://revmatthewlittlefield.substack.com/p/what-they-arent-telling-you-about

[2] Simplicus 2026, https://substack.com/home/post/p-195899035

Saw This Coming

 

Before 2019 I had never questioned vaccines.

By later that year I was starting to have some doubts about their safety for reasons I will not go into here.

By early 2020 those doubts were growing, because investigations into data were confirming things I was observed.

I look upon this as the grace of God preparing me for the abuse that the state was about to pour out on people, so that I was better prepared to respond and speak out about the injustice happening.

After Covid? Well only the most stubborn anti-learners still trust the government for things like medical advice. They believe that the best policies are chosen out of all the possibilities, they have not learnt how vested interests, ideological capture, outright corruption, and social pressure lead to a far than less than ideal system.

But many have learnt,

“They’re gaslighting the public—again.

Online misinformation is being blamed for declining vaccination rates in Australia, particularly among children and the elderly. In response, the Australian Government is launching new national immunisation campaigns, with Health Minister Mark Butler pointing to online disinformation as a key driver of public hesitation.

While “vaccine fatigue” has been acknowledged as a contributing factor, the government still appears intent on shifting responsibility away from the very institutions now asking the public to trust them again.

The public is told the problem lies not with the decisions of government or the conduct of health authorities, but with ordinary people who have supposedly been misled. In doing so, they’re reframing their own crisis of credibility as a crisis of information. It’s those who felt duped that have been duped.

But declining trust in political and medical authorities didn’t emerge in a vacuum. It was forged and reinforced during the COVID-19 years.

Australia was once a country where public trust in institutions, such as the government, health authorities, and mainstream media, was remarkably high by historical standards. That trust was built over decades, even generations. And it was spent in a moment of madness.

During the pandemic, governments and authorities adopted sweeping, and unprecedented measures: prolonged lockdowns, blanket mandates, and restrictions applied broadly across populations regardless of individual risk or consent.

At the same time, the threat was often exaggerated. Health officials would hold press conferences, urging the public to call an ambulance at the first sign of symptoms, only for government representatives to warn soon after that ambulance services were under critical strain. The result was a constant sense of alarm. It was fear-mongering upon fear-mongering, crisis upon crisis…

…Caldron Pool, for example, was one of the few Australian platforms that consistently challenged the mandates. And it came at a cost. We were demonised, maligned, and in some circles effectively rendered “untouchable,” including within parts of the Christian community. Many in positions of leadership not only complied with every government directive but went further, framing each mandate as a practical outworking of Christian love.”[1]

I remember having conversations with people during Covid about how the government’s abuses of power would lead to declining trust in vaccines and medicine in general. Some agreed wholeheartedly, others asked why I hated their grandmas.[2]

I referred to this article in another recent post, but last February I wrote about how the hospital system has moved from that to a merchant of death system. I noted in that article how the Hippocratic oath has been abandoned and replaced with an inverted version,

The original Hippocratic Oaths says,

"Nor shall any man's entreaty prevail upon me to administer poison to anyone; neither will I counsel any man to do so. Moreover, I will give no sort of medicine to any pregnant woman, with a view to destroy the child. Further, I will comport myself and use my knowledge in a godly manner."[2]

So, no abortion and no Euthanasia. The ancient form of the oath saw it as the doctor's job to do all he could to preserve life, and to work in a healthy and godly manner.

The revised version says something very different, and it is perhaps the one your doctor took,

"Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God."[3]

The modern doctor sees it within their role to "humbly" play the role of God, while also denying that they would ever do that. How do they do that? By allowing for their right to take a life. The nerve of them to think they have that right. They might have the power, but they corrupt medicine completely by claiming to have that right.

One of the things which has caused western medicine to become so advanced in many different areas in the past has been the push to lessen pain and suffering, and to try and stave off death. These twin powerful motivations have been an integral part of why so many researchers and doctors have poured endless hours into improving times of intense suffering and also solving deadly diseases. What do you think allowing for euthanasia is going to do to that motivation over time? If you think this will not have an effect, I am sorry, but you do not understand human nature.”[3]

Euthanasia, abortion, untested medications, fabricated data on tested medications, imperfect trials, bloated bureaucracy, massive amounts of profit…there are so many corrupting factors in modern medicine that the last thing the state should have done is act so coercive in a time of perceived crisis. But, then again, a system corrupted by these and other factors, was bound to exactly as it did.

Trust is not going to be rebuilt by an ad campaign.

Trust probably cannot be rebuilt. We are seeing bureaucracy and all that goes with that, bring great decline in all aspects of society. We need the hospital system, life is dangerous, we need good doctors, nurses, and health staff. But ask us to trust? No thanks. Not anymore. We understand now, we understand that the state sees us as numbers on a graph, data points in a spreadsheet. We understand that the medical system is now built around this perspective. We know there are still good people in the system, but we now know how the system directs and can even squash this. Especially when the state feels the desire to assert itself. Hence, we are going to be a lot more hesitant to take notice of the health messaging going forward. At least, those who have learnt will.

List of References

---

[1] https://substack.com/home/post/p-195805496

[2] Remember that disgusting slander?

[3] https://revmatthewlittlefield.substack.com/p/from-hospital-system-to-merchants?r=1envt0

What Do Women Desire The Most?

 

Remember that old Mel Gibson movie, What Women Want, about a misogynistic lady’s man who is given the power to hear what all the women around him are thinking?

Would that be a blessing or a curse? The movie explores that concept in a funny way.

This is a perennial question that men ask, “What DO women want?” They ask it about their girlfriends, about their wives, about women in general. Marketers have learnt to ask it about their favourite market, women, who make most the most purchases in society in most areas. So, what do women want? Or more precisely, what do women desire above all other things?

Well, perhaps some ancient texts can answer this question for us.

In the Wife of Bath’s Tale, in The Canterbury Tales, we read of a disgraced Knight who violated a woman and who is told by the Queen that his only chance at not being killed, is that he should go out into the world and in 12 months a day, find out what it is that women desire the most. The Knight finds his answer,

“Before the knight this old wife did arise,

And said: "Sir knight, hence lies no travelled way.

Tell me what thing you seek, and by your fay.

Perchance you'll find it may the better be;

These ancient folks know many things," said she.

"Dear mother," said this knight assuredly,

"I am but dead, save I can tell, truly,

What thing it is that women most desire;

Could you inform me, I'd pay well your hire."

"Plight me your troth here, hand in hand," said she,

"That you will do, whatever it may be,

The thing I ask if it lie in your might;

And I'll give you your answer ere the night."

"Have here my word," said he. "That thing I grant."

"Then," said the crone, "of this I make my vaunt,

Your life is safe; and I will stand thereby,

Upon my life, the queen will say as I.

Let's see which is the proudest of them all

That wears upon her hair kerchief or caul,

Shall dare say no to that which I shall teach;

Let us go now and without longer speech."

Then whispered she a sentence in his ear,

And bade him to be glad and have no fear.

When they were come unto the court, this knight

Said he had kept his promise as was right,

And ready was his answer, as he said.

Full many a noble wife, and many a maid,

And many a widow, since they are so wise,

The queen herself sitting as high justice,

Assembled were, his answer there to hear;

And then the knight was bidden to appear.

Command was given for silence in the hall,

And that the knight should tell before them all

What thing all worldly women love the best.

This knight did not stand dumb, as does a beast,

But to this question presently answered

With manly voice, so that the whole court heard:

"My liege lady, generally," said he,

"Women desire to have the sovereignty

As well upon their husband as their love,

And to have mastery their man above;

This thing you most desire, though me you kill

Do as you please, I am here at your will."

In all the court there was no wife or maid

Or widow that denied the thing he said,

But all held, he was worthy to have life.”[1]

What do women desire the most in the world? “Women desire to have the sovereignty, as well upon their husband as their love, and to have mastery their man above.” In other words, women desire above all things to rule their husbands. This is exactly how this tale ends, as well. The man ends up being bound by an oath to marry the older woman, who turns out to have the ability to magically transform herself into a pleasing and beautiful wife, but not before she has gained the mastery,

“This knight considered, and did sorely sigh,

But at the last replied as you shall hear:

"My lady and my love, and wife so dear,

I put myself in your wise governing;

Do you choose which may be the more pleasing,

And bring most honour to you, and me also.

I care not which it be of these things two;

For if you like it, that suffices me."

"Then have I got of you the mastery,

Since I may choose and govern, in earnest?"

"Yes, truly, wife," said he, "I hold that best."

"Kiss me," said she, "we'll be no longer wroth,

For by my truth, to you I will be both;

That is to say, I'll be both good and fair.”[2]

Now, I would never say that The Wife of Bath, nor her tale, should be seen as a beacon of morality. Chaucer was not writing a text of high-minded morality, he was writing a series of interesting tales, some that do speak of high morality, others that are simple comedies or interesting stories. However, this insight that women want to rule their husbands, is as true and ancient an insight as you will ever find.

God says to the woman in Genesis 3:16, “Your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you.” Some have understood this to be sexual desire, and perhaps that is part of it. But when you compare this with the fact that God says in Genesis 4 to Cain that sin desires to have him, but he must rule over it, then it is best understood as sovereignty. The woman wants sovereignty over her husband.

The context best supports this, as well, because Adam deferred to his wife’s authority and ate what she give him. He is responsible for not seeking to rule correctly and rebuking the serpent. But in this act we see the beginning of the battle of the sexes, the struggle between men and women, the desire for the woman to rule, and the temptation for the man to tyrannize or dominate in response. Rather than a relationship of mutuality with the man leading in a harmonious fellowship, a wedge was introduced on this day between man and woman. One that still exists. One that every relationship experiences in one way or another.

This is why there are several commands in the New Testament encouraging wives to submissively respect their husbands (1 Pet. 3:7, Eph. 5:24, Col. 3:18). Because their sinful nature can inspire them to rebel, just as the man’s sinful nature can make him too harsh, too domineering, or oppressive. Which is why Peter says we should consider our wives as they are the weaker vessel and why Paul says that a man and his wife are one and no man hurts his own body.

The Church is really good at addressing the sinful aspects of masculinity. In fact, it has done such a good job at this, that in many cases it has crushed a lot of masculinity in the Church and driven many men away. We have overcorrected from past errors and even some claimed errors, a common human trait no doubt. The Bible challenges the sinful aspects of masculinity as well, so, there is place for this in the Church to be done wisely and biblically. But what is often overlooked is that the Bible addresses the tendency in women to seek to dominate their husbands, or men in general. Here are two stand out passages,

“16 Moreover the Lord says: “Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, And walk with outstretched necks And wanton eyes, Walking and mincing as they go, Making a jingling with their feet, 17 Therefore the Lord will strike with a scab The crown of the head of the daughters of Zion, And the Lord will uncover their secret parts” (Isa. 3:16-17).

“1 Hear this word, you cows of Bashan, who are on the mountain of Samaria, Who oppress the poor, Who crush the needy, Who say to your husbands, “Bring wine, let us drink!” 2 The Lord God has sworn by His holiness: “Behold, the days shall come upon you When He will take you away with fishhooks, And your posterity with fishhooks. 3 You will go out through broken walls, Each one straight ahead of her, And you will be cast into Harmon,” Says the Lord” (Amos. 4:1-3).

The haughtiness of women who have won the battle of the sexes is offensive to God. Just as the man who is domineering to his wife is offensive to God. Sadly, we live in a day and age which is very much akin to the one in which we see in Isaiah 1-3 and Amos 4. These passages are describing, respectively, the kingdom of Judah and the Kingdom of Israel. They are describing societies captured by pusillanimous men and domineering wives, women who mince about, boss their husbands around, and believe they are secure in their prosperity.

Meanwhile, the hoards of men from cultures that don’t tolerate such behaviour are increasing and banging down the doors of our nation…I mean their nation…well, it both really.  

So, what do women desire most of all? This: "Then have I got of you the mastery, Since I may choose and govern, in earnest?" I think many men give into their wife’s desire to rule in the home for a simple reason: it is easier. It is easier to just defer to that than deal with the stress that can come from seeking to resist giving into this. But this is the man’s challenge, to lead well, without becoming a tyrant himself. This is what men are called to. This is the challenge, if you are willing to accept it.

More men should be taught this before they pursue marriage, too many are fooled by our modern society’s lies about egalitarianism and go charging into marriage thinking it will be an equal partnership, only to find out that their wife means by equal that you defer to her whenever she requires. Many Aussie men acquiesce to that desire of their wives. After working all day, dealing with things going wrong at work, dealing with modern traffic, dealing with whatever else is going on, who has the emotional energy to care enough to seek to wrestle over such things?

The diligent man, that is who.

But beware men, because many women come to despise the men who give in and are ruled by them. Women want a man they can respect. They want this as much, or even more, than a man to rule. When they work hard to rule, it is so that they can feel safe. A man who is too easily ruled is not dangerous, but he is also not safe, because his soft belly has been exposed. This is why so many women become very masculine as they age, they have had to harden to keep themselves safe. This is also why so many of these men find their wives falling for other men, they are drawn to a man they can respect.

This area is more of an art than a science. Every couple is going to work this out in different ways, or not at all, but all will face this struggle. I am simply noting that you should not go into marriage unaware of this tendency in women, and of the effects this will have on you, your marriage, your children, your church, and every part of society your family touches.

And society, in general, is barracking for your wife to win the struggle for leadership. Come to think about it, is that not what the movie What Women Want is about? Did not Helen Hunt gain the upper hand over Gibson’s character? Interesting how the newer tales are just versions of the ancient tales, indicating that this is a perennial truth.

List of References

---

[1] Chaucer, Geoffrey .. The Canterbury Tales: FREE Hamlet By William Shakespeare (JKL Classics - Active TOC, Active Footnotes ,Illustrated) (pp. 292-293). JKL Classics. Kindle Edition.

[2] Chaucer, Geoffrey .. The Canterbury Tales: FREE Hamlet By William Shakespeare (JKL Classics - Active TOC, Active Footnotes ,Illustrated) (p. 298). JKL Classics. Kindle Edition.

A Modern Holocaust

 

You can watch the livestream of this interview tonight at Based Christian History at 8pm AEST.  

Every 11 days a woman is killed in Australia. Every 11 days. Some data notes it is 125 women a year. It is considered a national crisis. The resources of many government and civilian organizations are brought to bear on this problem. One woman killed is one too many. No one disagrees. Well, almost no one. And those who disagree will be correctly shunned from polite society.

Between 78,000 and 90,000 children are killed every year in this country. Every day a mother, an infanticide provider (called doctors) and sometimes, but not always, the father will combine together to kill between 214 and 247 children a day. We don't know the exact numbers, because it is such a national disgrace and crime against humanity the precise numbers are not reported. For all our governments claims about how this should be allowed, even they feel some shame about this situation, or at least a desire to hide it.

This means that though feminist domestic violence institutions like to say that the home is the most dangerous place for women, it is between 624 to 720 times safer for a woman than the womb is for an unborn child. And about half those unborn children would have been women, if they had the chance to be born and grow up.

It takes less than two years for mothers, abortionists, and sometimes the fathers also, to kill more children than the total number of Soldiers who have died in Australian wars. More children die each year in the womb, than the amount of Australian men who died in WW1, about 60,000.

No one is more likely to kill a woman than her partner. But such men are rare. Less than 125 a year do this. In a country of 27 million, that number is statistically infinitesimal. Tiny, fractionally tiny. Women are incredibly safe in the home. No man who hits his wife gets any respect, nor should he. As an ancient Roman leader once said, "A man who strikes his wife, strikes what is most precious." Even ancient cultures that may have allowed it frowned on men who were so weak as to hit a woman. Our culture has made it a national disgrace to be such a man. Well done.

No one is more likely to kill a child than their mother, and an abortion provider. The father may be involved. But he has no legal right to be, can be charged if he coerces her, and often is not told anyway.

More children killed each day, than women killed each year. In fact, nearly double the amount each day.

This holocaust is too great. Our national shame is too great, to be polite or quiet about this.

Some would say, incorrectly, that God will judge us for this, as a nation. They are well meaning, but wrong.

He already is. It is happening.

Birth rates have plummeted so fast, Australia's own government is importing in people, mostly from cultures that do not grant this same right to their women. Do you think that is a coincidence?

While Australians are increasing in homelessness, record numbers of foreigners are moving in and buying Aussie homes. People, often from cultures that consider children wealth.

How often are aborted children incinerated after the act? What did God say would happen to a culture that rejects him and passes its children through the fires?

"43 The sojourner who is among you shall rise higher and higher above you, and you shall come down lower and lower. 44 He shall lend to you, and you shall not lend to him. He shall be the head, and you shall be the tail. 45 “All these curses shall come upon you and pursue you and overtake you till you are destroyed, because you did not obey the voice of the Lord your God, to keep his commandments and his statutes that he commanded you" (Deut. 28:43-45).

This nation has many ills. At the top of this list is women being allowed to do this. Men have been conditioned and encouraged to police each other and never accept domestic violence against a woman. I think we can only solve this issue if women are conditioned and encouraged to police each other in a similar way.

In light of this, I will be interviewing Mike Foster on my channel, Based Christian History, tonight at 8pm AEST about the Pro-Life position. You can click this link here to watch the debate live or later.

Are We Really Honouring the ANZACs?

I have a lot of mixed feelings on ANZAC day. I believe honouring the soldiers who laid down their lives for our country is a noble thing. They fought for our country and they fought for their mates. Some of the best young men our society ever produced never came home. Many who did were broken. 

Yet they died for a different country, a country that no longer exists.  In fact, they died for a country that many of our current leaders would tell us we should be ashamed of. They died for a country that was unashamedly Christian, many had Bibles in their kits, they died for a country that was almost completely united in origin and history. And they died for a country that would be horrified by the country we are today. We have a Prime Minister that has said people who would like to return to the country we came from are people of concern. He has himself expressed his desire to change the culture our ANZACs believed in. A largely Christian society. 

Part of the reason we are in this situation is because in two world wars and more, our men died fighting for a globalist system, often without realizing it. They were told they were signing up for our country, and then they were used by leaders who have no loyalty to our heritage or traditions, but to international causes. One of the reasons so many of our veterans struggle is because they come to realize this. 

Australians are conditioned to believe that this is our role in the world. That we should fight for foreign causes, in foreign lands, for the policies of foreign nations. We are ruled by leaders who cynically use days of remembrance to condition us to think this way. The vast majority of Australian casualties of war, men in the prime of their lives, died fighting people who never had any intention or ability to invade our country. Then we are reminded every year that this is how Australia's military adventures are begun. This does something to the psyche of a nation. 

Have you ever wondered why our country is so dedicated to following foreign trends and countries, and almost never forges its own path? It is in large part because we have been conditioned to think of ourselves as a small part of the efforts of larger powers. Larger powers who did not think twice about sending our best young men into an unwinnable battle, while their commanders drank tea, and thought of our men as markers on a map. That happened at Gallipoli, that is how the kind of elites who rule our nations think of the men who serve. Think about that. 

They think about you like that. It’s why they have no care that Aussies are becoming more homeless because of their policies. All they see is markers in a map, stats on a graph. 

But those soldiers were more than markers on a map. They were the backbone of our society.

Some will confuse this for an attack on our soldiers it is not. It is a critique about how cynically our greatest traditions, and our most remembered historical events, are used to create a compliant population. Or at least one that does not question things like why are we sending our best everywhere, when they are needed here? Why does Australia always serve foreign interests? Why is the foreigner being given our nation, when it was defended by our best men?

I have been meditating on this for some time. But my devotion today compelled me to write about this. 

The Bible is not about what happened. It is about what always happens. It is about what happens when a nation abandons God or when a people trusts in God. 

Look at this passage, 

"5 O house of Jacob, come and let us walk

In the light of the Lord.

6 For You have forsaken Your people, the house of Jacob,

Because they are filled with eastern ways;

They are soothsayers like the Philistines,

And they are pleased with the children of foreigners.

7 Their land is also full of silver and gold,

And there is no end to their treasures;

Their land is also full of horses,

And there is no end to their chariots.

8 Their land is also full of idols;

They worship the work of their own hands,

That which their own fingers have made.

9 People bow down,

And each man humbles himself;

Therefore do not forgive them." (Isa. 2:6-9)

It is not soldiers and weapons that ultimately keeps us safe. It is the favour of God. Jacob (Israel) had become proud in their abilities and capabilities, their weapons, and their own selves. Read this passage, does it not describe our culture? Does is not describe a society that has been trained to look at their own efforts, and not the God who grants peace or allows war?

If our traditions do not point us to honour the kind of country Australia actually was, then how are we honouring the ANZACs? How are we honouring their legacy if we just ritualize the day, but fail to recognize what our country has turned into: one the ANZACs would have seen as the antithesis of their beliefs. One that does not centre itself around the very God that many of them prayed to in the heat of battle.

So, for me, ANZAC day is a really mixed day. I have marched as a participant in ANZAC parades as a youth and I have participated as a soldier. The legacy of our soldiers deserves better than what we have done as a nation.