Book Sale

Tuesday 30 January 2024

Aurelius and Oppostion


Something I like to remind myself often is that opposition is a part of life. It was Vox Day who first directed me to this quote by Marcus Aurelius”

“Begin each day by telling yourself: Today I shall be meeting with interference, ingratitude, insolence, disloyalty, ill-will, and selfishness – all of them due to the offenders’ ignorance of what is good or evil. But for my part I have long perceived the nature of good and its nobility, the nature of evil and its meanness, and also the nature of the culprit himself, who is my brother (not in the physical sense, but as a fellow creature similarly endowed with reason and a share of the divine); therefore none of those things can injure me, for nobody can implicate me in what is degrading. Neither can I be angry with my brother or fall foul of him; for he and I were born to work together, like a man’s two hands, feet or eyelids, or the upper and lower rows of his teeth. To obstruct each other is against Nature’s law – and what is irritation or aversion but a form of obstruction.”[1]

Ultimately what Aurelius says here is no different to what Jesus told us about when he said that people would oppose us. Or what Paul told us about, when he said that through many trials and tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God (Acts 14:22). This life will be full of opposition, and when one source of that opposition fades, sooner, not later, but sooner, another one or more will present itself. Sometimes more than one at a time.

This is especially true if you are in leadership in any context. The more significant your leadership is, that is the more people you lead, or the more people you have responsibility for, the more varieties of opposition you will face. You must not only be prepared to face it, you need to face it with an attitude that says, “When I come out on the other side of this I will be an improved person because God is using this to teach me something I need to know.” As much as we don’t enjoy them, trials are good for us, and they are used by God to refine us and grow in us maturity.

Some leaders give up in the midst of the trial and they never actually get a chance to learn what it was that God was teaching them. This we must be determined not to do. The only way to have a life free of trials and tribulations would be to already be perfect in your being and in your role. Jesus was perfect in his being, but he needed to be perfected in his role (Heb. 5:8-10). So even the most perfect person who ever lived faced trials. Trials are God’s way of telling us that we have something he wants to teach us, or something he wants us to overcome, or something he wants build into us that we did not already have.

So, instead of praying that the trials would go away, ask God to help you to learn what it is that he wants to teach you quickly. You can begin to face them with a degree of stoicism like Aurelius, but that is not enough for true maturity to begin to set in. You need to know more than just that you will face trials because people will oppose you for one reason or another. You need to also know that you will face trials because you have a good God who wants to teach you and make you more like him (1 Peter 1, Romans 8, Heb. 12).

You will face opposition, make the best of it you can by learning what you did not already know before that trial came along.

List of References


Monday 29 January 2024

State Atheism Camps


From the early medieval era till the early 19th century education was the domain of the church and the home, and Europe advanced continually as a society to great heights and remained Christian. In the early 19th century Napoleon took it upon himself to centralize education, militarise it (uniforms, desks in lines, military style discipline etc, etc) and the rest of the West copied him. Napoleon taught the leaders of Europe how to take state control of the education system. The famous Prussian model built itself on this. This education revolution changed the world, and eventually the religious nature of the West:

“Napoleon desired above all things, however, that in the future the Government should have the confidence of the majority of Frenchmen. To accomplish this the Government must needs have control of their intellects, and must mould the same to its own good pleasure, taking charge of its citizens from their infancy by means of an elaborate system of education.  This was a new idea which Napoleon had borrowed from the Assemblies of the Revolution. Under the Ancient Régime, in fact, the King had not interested himself in the education of his subjects. Practically all education worthy of the name was in the hands of ecclesiastics, frequently Jesuits; and a great fraction of the lower classes had been pitifully illiterate. The men of the Revolution and their leaders occupied themselves with preparing a scheme for instruction by the State. Napoleon built upon their work and attached the utmost importance to the development of this type of instruction, because "he wished to form," he declared, "a block of granite on which to build the strata of the new society." As Consul he had organized the high schools (lycées). As Emperor he established the "University."

The Imperial University was founded (March 17, 1808), in order, the decree stated, "to assure uniformity of instruction and to mould for the State citizens devoted to their religion, their prince, their fatherland, and their families." It was to teach "faithfulness to the Emperor and to the Imperial Monarchy, the guardian of the prosperity of the people."

Under the direction of a "Grand Master," who ranked among the principal dignitaries of the Empire, and who later became the Minister of Public Instruction, the University comprised a graded system with three types of instruction – primary, secondary, and higher. For the sake of administration it was divided into academies, each supervised by a Rector. This hierarchy of instruction and administrative organization exist to-day just as they were established by Napoleon.

Primary education was not, indeed, organized by the State. The Emperor entrusted it to the care of the "Brothers of the Christian Faith." They received an annual subsidy of only 4250 francs. This was the entire budget for primary instruction! All this meant that elementary instruction, too elementary to convey any political knowledge, was turned over to the Church and its charities. So far as Napoleon was involved, it did not greatly matter if ploughmen and vine-dressers remained illiterate.

Secondary instruction, however, was organized with great care, because it was to mould the future military and civil officials through whom the Emperor was to control France. This instruction was given in the colleges and high schools (lycées). The programmes were stripped almost completely of all those studies which might tend to create or develop the critical spirit: philosophy and history, etc. The professors and pupils were subjected to military discipline. The ordinary high schools were governed by a uniform regulation, where their entire programme was carried out to the tap from the drum, and had all the aspect of military schools.[1]

From the moment that education was centralized into the control of the state irreligion, radical socialism, and many other degradations have taken an increasing hold of the West. State control of education has not produced better citizens or societies, but more atheist citizens and societies. And now many kids are taught ridiculous things about gender, anthropogenic climate change (secular end-times) and more.

It doesn't take a genius to know how to turn this around. It starts with getting away from state run schools as much as possible. Napoleon did not begin with taking control of the entire education system. He began by taking over the upper levels, and hamstrung the church by removing much of its potential funding for proper education. However, the encroachment of the state into education has only increased since his reforms, and the more this encroachment increases the more the evils of the French revolution, such as socialism, extreme emphasis on equality, an anti-hierarchical society and atheism have increased. In fact, these things have become so successful that much of the church which once oppose these things has taken them on board and now defends them, except maybe atheism ( though openly atheist pastors do exist).

Education is the responsibility of parents, first and foremost. We have farmed to much of parenting out to others, and farming it out to the state has had incredibly negative effects. There are people who will cry out, “I went to public school and I am a strong Christian!” Putting aside the facts that even many of these Christians are people with strong socialist and egalitarian philosophies who often advocate for more government power in society and often radical social programs that undermine the traditional family, being the exception does not mean public schools are a net good. When the Church oversaw education it produced Christians and universities, and great philosophers and many other grand institutions of Europe. When the state took over control it began a strong process of turning every citizen into an obedient worker drone who was taught not to question the state. Is this really disputable? After all, it was the stated goal of creators of the system that has turned into what we have today.  

Also, how could a system that got rid of history and philosophy not be intrinsically evil? Today philosophy is non-existent in school and history is taught very badly. This situation was a product of an evil man from an evil time. It's time to move away from his model. 

List of References

[1] Davis, William Stearns. A History of France from the Earliest Times to the Treaty of Versailles (pp. 318-319). Lecturable. Kindle Edition.

Saturday 27 January 2024



Conscription is clearly often immoral (except maybe when your society is under direct threat).[1] But I could be convinced to support it under one condition: anyone, no matter their age (they can't be too old, no exceptions) or gender who advocates for war or conscription, must be in the first wave of conscripts and sent to war. If, after their deployment there is still a need to fight, then we may have to do general conscription. I suspect this policy could solve more wars than we think though. How often today are wars far removed from the aggressor country, fighting an enemy we have nothing to do with and never attacked us? Most of the time, especially America’s wars.  

There is a bit of a myth that the most war hungry people are those in the military themselves. But this is not true, especially of seasoned soldiers who tend to learn what really is behind many wars and recognize why it is always better to avoid a fight if possible. And who also recognize how often the motives for wars are immoral and unjust and just serve the interests of the powerful and corrupt.  

The most war hungry people are often those who would never lift a rifle for themselves, but who live in a state of near constant fear or alert about the world, and who therefore want as many people as possible to go and fight what they are afraid of so they can live in peace. That is after the weapons builders, of course. As Smedley Butler proved in his book, War is a Racket, war is largely a profit supercharging exercise for the wealthy. During war a small percentage of the most powerful men get very rich, their sons get exempted from fighting, and the rest of the male population bears the brunt. Between these two groups, the chicken hawks and the military industrial complex, you have most of the push for war in our modern nations. Many military men, especially below the top ranks, would prefer not to go to war.

Don’t take my word for it, here is what a veteran has to say about this topic,

“I’ve been in or around the military for two decades, first as a soldier and later as a defence journalist – including trips to Afghanistan in both roles…

…These calls to arms are delivered partly because generals and politicians mistake things about which they personally fantasise of an evening, for things which are remotely in the national security interest.

But primarily because the military and the state must endlessly justify its vast and wasteful war spending while your nan freezes for five months of the year…

…Just ask the millennial veterans who served in failed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. For the most part, War on Terror veterans I meet view their wars with cynicism…

…Beyond that, if Russian and British generals and politicians really want to fight, they should duke out themselves and leave the rest of us out of it.”[2]

Most of the ordinary run-of-the-mill military folk don’t want to get into bad wars. And it would be an even worse idea to try and make up for this with conscription, because:

“It is also a bureaucratic and expensive waste of labour and talent. Conscription does not just recruit literal bodies to fight, it tends to recruit broader society in a struggle against it.

One of the reasons why we have a professional military is that conscription in wartime radicalises and backfires. During the Vietnam War, soldiers were shooting their own officers and sailors were sabotaging their ships, which tends to cause a terrible mess.”[3]

Conscription is not the wonderful idea that many boomers and some other conservatives think it is. Alot of people, especially older people, think things like conscription or national service are simply unquestionable good things. But conscript armies are undisciplined, low in morale and are often in need of heavy policing to function well. Because most people are not keen to fight when they know the cause is unjust, and the enemy they face is just like them; men who'd rather be home than fighting oligarch wars. Remember the stories of German and British soldiers exchanging gifts at Christmas in World War 1? Or World War 2 fighters shooting above the heads of the enemy? 

This was even the attitude of many in the ancient world. One of the most warlike peoples in the ancient world, the ancient Greeks - the Myceneans - had a custom that as two armies came up to do battle they would often send out their champions to face each other, and the winning army was the one where the champion won. Those men got it. Send your two biggest troublemakers out to fight, and let everyone else go home to their wives, children and farms.

Conscription on a large scale is a relatively modern phenomenon, put in place by the French in the Revolutionary era and capitalized on by the warmonger Napoleon to serve his own goals and interests. Our world would be a better place if those who continued to push for unnecessary wars were made to do all the fighting themselves. As citizens we should oppose such measures, unless of course our own nation is under dire threat.

List of References

[1] For those who dispute this, how is it not the sin of man-stealing? Exodus 21:16, “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.” It is not just selling the slave that was wrong, it was stealing them to force them into your service which was wrong as well. Because the consequences of invasion are worse than the consequences of conscription, the more important moral imperative might need to be heeded.

[3] Ibid.

Friday 26 January 2024

The Hubris of our Human Anger


Being justified in your anger is not enough justification to lash out in anger. Here is a famous Grimm’s Tale which drives this message home:

The tailor in heaven

A fairy tale by the Brothers Grimm

One very fine day it came to pass that the good God wished to enjoy himself in the heavenly garden, and took all the apostles and saints with him, so that no one stayed in heaven but Saint Peter. The Lord had commanded him to let no one in during his absence, so Peter stood by the door and kept watch. Before long some one knocked. Peter asked who was there, and what he wanted? "I am a poor, honest tailor who prays for admission," replied a smooth voice. "Honest indeed," said Peter, "like the thief on the gallows! Thou hast been light-fingered and hast snipped folks' clothes away. Thou wilt not get into heaven. The Lord hath forbidden me to let any one in while he is out." - "Come, do be merciful," cried the tailor. "Little scraps which fall off the table of their own accord are not stolen, and are not worth speaking about. Look, I am lame, and have blisters on my feet with walking here, I cannot possibly turn back again. Only let me in, and I will do all the rough work. I will carry the children, and wash their clothes, and wash and clean the benches on which they have been playing, and patch all their torn clothes." Saint Peter let himself be moved by pity, and opened the door of heaven just wide enough for the lame tailor to slip his lean body in. He was forced to sit down in a corner behind the door, and was to stay quietly and peaceably there, in order that the Lord, when he returned, might not observe him and be angry. The tailor obeyed, but once when Saint Peter went outside the door, he got up, and full of curiosity, went round about into every corner of heaven, and inspected the arrangement of every place. At length he came to a spot where many beautiful and delightful chairs were standing, and in the midst was a seat all of gold which was set with shining jewels, likewise it was much higher than the other chairs, and a footstool of gold was before it. It was, however, the seat on which the Lord sat when he was at home, and from which he could see everything which happened on earth. The tailor stood still, and looked at the seat for a long time, for it pleased him better than all else. At last he could master his curiosity no longer, and climbed up and seated himself in the chair. Then he saw everything which was happening on earth, and observed an ugly old woman who was standing washing by the side of a stream, secretly laying two veils on one side for herself. The sight of this made the tailor so angry that he laid hold of the golden footstool, and threw it down to earth through heaven, at the old thief. As, however, he could not bring the stool back again, he slipped quietly out of the chair, seated himself in his place behind the door, and behaved as if he had never stirred from the spot.

When the Lord and master came back again with his heavenly companions, he did not see the tailor behind the door, but when he seated himself on his chair the footstool was missing. He asked Saint Peter what had become of the stool, but he did not know. Then he asked if he had let anyone come in. "I know of no one who has been here," answered Peter, "but a lame tailor, who is still sitting behind the door." Then the Lord had the tailor brought before him, and asked him if he had taken away the stool, and where he had put it? "Oh, Lord," answered the tailor joyously, "I threw it in my anger down to earth at an old woman whom I saw stealing two veils at the washing." - "Oh, thou knave," said the Lord, "were I to judge as thou judgest, how dost thou think thou couldst have escaped so long? I should long ago have had no chairs, benches, seats, nay, not even an oven-fork, but should have thrown everything down at the sinners. Henceforth thou canst stay no longer in heaven, but must go outside the door again. Then go where thou wilt. No one shall give punishment here, but I alone, the Lord."

Peter was obliged to take the tailor out of heaven again, and as he had torn shoes, and feet covered with blisters, he took a stick in his hand, and went to "Wait-a-bit," where the good soldiers sit and make merry.[1]

Nothing quite like an ancient fairy tale to drive home such an important truth. As Paul said,  “31 Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice” (Ephesians 4:31).

List of References

Thursday 25 January 2024

The Privileged Sex – Women and Crime


One of the things that makes the Redpill or MGTOW[1] community attractive to a lot of younger men today is that the purveyors of the movement like to share hard truths; the kind of truths that many others avoid. You will hear them say stuff life, “We drop truth bombs,” or “We will tell you the cold, hard truth,” and other things like that. And I will grant it to the men, and sometimes women, in this movement they are willing to deal with uncomfortable and awkward topics that much of the mainstream discourse just does not want a bar of. It is no wonder, then, that the Redpill community gains traction with many young men.

There is very good evidence that we live in a gynocentric[2] society and that the deck is stacked against the man. This is even true when it comes to domestic violence, in how it is understood and how it is punished. Martin van Creveld, who is a historian,[3] notes in his remarkable book, The Privileged Sex, about domestic violence:

“What is true of the military is equally true for society at large. In 1975, and again in 1985, the National Institute of Mental Health studied a national sample of 2,143 married and cohabiting couples. In both years, the number of attacks which spouses of either sex directed at the other was practically equal. Another study discovered that, each year, American wives were one-fifth more likely to “severely attack” their husbands than vice versa. In Canada, according to yet another study, the discrepancy is greater still. Of the women interviewed, 6.2 percent admitted to having beaten up their partners during the preceding year, as compared to 2.5 percent of men. In the same study, more women than men admitted to having used “severe” violence, and more women than men admitted to having used a knife or a gun. And the more severe the violence, the more likely it is to be directed by women against men. One study of police records found that women were three times more likely to threaten or use weapons, such as knives and guns, against their spouses than men.

So-called reverse spouse abuse — note the terminology, which makes clear that the real thing refers to men abusing women — is the most under-reported form of all domestic violence. Some of the reasons for this may be methodological. It stands to reason that at least some men are being hit or pushed, have things thrown at them or are kicked or whipped, just as some women are. But this does not prevent most investigators from ignoring that possibility. They assume that men’s “accounts of the violence cannot be taken at face value,” while registering what women say as if it were gospel truth. For example, 30 percent of women questioned in one emergency room between 1976 and 1979 blamed their injuries on domestic abuse. Since men were not questioned on the matter, they could not have reported it even if it had taken place.

Conversely, when one study did compare the percentage of people of both sexes admitted to hospital emergency rooms as a result of injuries allegedly caused by domestic violence, it turned out that there was little difference between men and women.

Another reason why female-on-male domestic violence is under-reported is the lenient way such cases are treated. In the movies, women who commit violence against men are often applauded by the audience. The reverse happens rarely, if ever. In real life, men who dare to complain are likely to be despised, derided, or both. One does not have to be a criminologist or sociologist to know that, as long as it is perpetrated by a woman against a man, domestic violence “tends to be... victim precipitated.” Stripped of jargon, this means that a woman is much more likely to be regarded as having acted in self-defense. This applies even when, as happens in no fewer than 70 percent of all known cases, the violence is applied at a time when the man is helpless. Lorena Bobbitt was not the only woman whose male partner was asleep at the time of the attack. Other men were drunk or bound.

As former New York governor Mario Cuomo, the father of current New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, said when he decided to pardon a woman who shot her estranged husband after driving several hundred miles, when it comes to women who kills “there are no rules.” In a single act of clemency in 1990, the governor of Ohio, Richard Celeste, pardoned no fewer than 27 women convicted of murdering their husbands. 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.

So strong is the presumption that “mothers don’t kill” that it has even formed the basis for a legal defense strategy. One offender who resorted to such a defense, a Virginia female convicted in 2000 of cooking her baby in a microwave oven, got off with a mere five years in jail. With good behavior, she could have gotten off in three. Later she was joined by several more microwave-mothers, all of whom cited various psychological symptoms in the hope of receiving similarly lenient treatment.

Thus, when a woman accuses a man to whom she is not married of using violence against her, or of sexual harassment, or sexual assault, or rape, then the man in question is disproportionally likely to suffer punishment.”[4]

Martin van Creveld shows beyond a shadow of doubt how favoured women are by the legal system over men. In other parts of the book he shows how often men and women convicted of the exact same crime, meaning they were both involved at every point, still get off lighter than the men they were committing it with.[5] Both women and lawyers know this is the case and take advantage of the fact.[6]

All this goes to show that the claims of the Redpill men that society favours women in many contexts is absolutely true. They are not lying when they say that a man will almost always be at a disadvantage before the courts, and in many other aspects of life. They are basing this often on their own personal experience, and also on well studied research like that provided by van Creveld in The Privileged Sex.

If you read van Creveld’s book he shows beyond a shadow of a doubt this this has always been the case for humanity and will always be the case. I would summarise his argument as such, “Yes, women are privileged, if they weren’t the human race would really struggle.” In other words, women are privileged, because to some degree they need to be. What is even more interesting is the even the Bible leans into this position as well.

We read in 1 Peter 3:7 this, “7 Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.” This passage is often misunderstood because it states plainly that women are “the weaker vessel.” For one feminists either get offended at or seek to redefine its meaning, because they do not like their physical vulnerability spelled out so bluntly. I saw one such feminist (the worst kind; a male feminist) once actually argue that weaker meant stronger. That made me laugh. But it is also misunderstood by conservatives who seek to say that women are equal to men, but also different. Putting aside the fact that 'equal' and 'same' are synonyms, so this conservative response makes no sense, Peter did not say they are equal, he said weaker. Why is this?

Because, God created men and women to bear very different loads and roles in this world. What Peter is saying is very important: he is saying, “Don’t regard your wife as your equal, capable of doing everything you can do. Treasure her as the more fragile honoured vessel she is, otherwise God will be against you.” Our society thinks that it is horrible if husbands and wives don’t consider each other equal. Peter is saying the opposite, it is horrible if we do. It is built into creation that men should have more regard for women, than for men. Especially their own wife. Because the women has more need for it.

So complaining about how men and women are not treated equal, but should be, is both a fools errand and way off base. It is actually incredibly harmful. For one, a pretty, or even reasonably pretty young woman in a court room, or interview room in a police station, is always going to evoke more sympathy than a man in the same position, especially with men. This is like an immutable law of nature, it is foolish to try to suppress this. Because this has been built into how we should view women. Secondly, society would not work if it was not this way, because women are the weaker vessel they need more consideration and care in almost every context. And this is a good thing to provide.

Van Creveld hits on this in the Conclusion of his book:

“We men well realize that nature, having made us, as Nietzsche put it, the “unfruitful animal” and forced us to compete for women, has turned us into the superfluous sex. Giving us larger and more robust bodies, it has also destined us to act as beasts of burden. Our need of, and love for, women being as strong as it is, most of the time we do not really mind the fact that they are privileged in so many ways. Nor, in our heart of hearts, would we like the situation to change. After all, it was women who gave us life. In a way, all we are doing is returning a debt. This is true even if the burden is occasionally heavy, and even if while carrying it we sometimes have to lay down our lives. Ceasing to support women, we would lose not just our existence but our self-respect. Perhaps the real reason why women have never fought in war is because, as Hector told his wife, we men would rather die than watch them dying. To quote an Indian proverb, where women are worshipped, there the gods dwell. It would be nice, though, if from time to time, amid the torrents of invective feminists spew at us, we occasionally heard a pleasant female voice saying “thank you, Mate.”[7]

As a Christian obviously I cannot endorse worshipping women, of course this is not right. Also I don not agree nature made us this way, rather it is God's design. But the sentiment of van Creveld’s conclusion is spot on: men are created to provide for women and make sure that they are lifted up to some degree and women are created to come along side men and take advantage of this provision and protection.

In other words, there might be some good policies which the Redpill community could achieve. But the underlying philosophy of advocating for equality between men and women is foolish. It won’t happen, can’t happen, and would be devastating if we attempted it, “Ceasing to support women, we would lose not just our existence but our self-respect.” The inbuilt patriarchal nature of our world that views and treats women with privileges and favours it does not also hand to men is part of God’s design for our world. Yes, because of human sin it is corrupted and taken in unhealthy directions, but it is not wrong in and of itself for these intrinsic differences to exist and be cultivated. In fact, it is vital that they are to some degree.

This is why the Redpill philosophy is ultimately bankrupt. It might have some good points, as did the feminism of the 19th Century. But the solution the feminists put forward, more equality between the sexes, ended up causing a whole host of new issues. The Redpill community is falling into this same trap. The solution is not the Redpill, it is Peter, and Paul, and Moses, and Jesus; the very Jesus who told his friend John to look after his mother. In the Scriptures we find the solutions we should be applying, outside of basing our position on their foundations, we risk falling into an even worse situation.


List of References

[1] Men Going Their Own Way

[2] Female favouring, or female dominated culture. Bing defines it as, “centred on or concerned exclusively with women; taking a female (or specifically a feminist) point of view.”

[3] I have no idea what he thinks of MGTOW or the Redpill.

[4] van Creveld, Martin 2013, The Privileged Sex (pp. 167-169). DLVC Enterprises. Kindle Edition.

[5] Ibid, pp. 155-160.

[6] Ibid, p. 160.

[7] Ibid, p. 287.

Tuesday 23 January 2024

Unpopular Opinion Time: Women’s Sport


Unpopular opinion time: Conservatives go on way too much about women's sport. But women's sport is a strange side issue, and even if you win that battle it will not change the trajectory of society. It is a really strange distraction issue of little value.  

For one, so few women play sport, that even most women are not interested in it. Two, are you aware how much of women's sport, especially at the higher levels, is a pickup scene for lesbians? Why was the most iconic picture out of the first Televised women's state of origin two women kissing? Because the gender transgressive nature of women's sport, especially at the professional level, is well known by many involved. Three, because of the hip structure of women things like football, soccer and many other sports that involve sideways movement have serious negative effects on a women's body in ways that they do not have on men's bodies. So, many sports hurt women in ways that they do not hurt men. Four, women's professional sport is an inherently feminist issue, it was something that transgressive radical feminists pushed. Why would the church advocate for their position? It is ridiculous. It's white-knighting on a seriously irrelevant issue.

Yes, of course men dressing as women to play against women is ridiculous. Yes, of course it should be illegal. But to take the side of radical feminists, to argue for the importance of the categort, feminists that have done far more harm to our society than any other gender radicalists is just silly.

One of the reasons I do not call myself a conservative, is because most conservatives just defend the liberal/feminist/leftist positions of a generation ago. Which means in a generation the conservatives will be defending the liberal/feminist/leftist positions of today. Once you see that you can't unsee it, and it is a particularly sure way to make sure that our society is completely undermined in every way.

On it being a gender transgressive issue, you can hear how this is considered an important aspect of women's sport in many contexts. Here's one:

“It’s just another way that women’s sports spaces are reflective of queerness: They center certain aspects of queer culture, making them safer places to be out, and making them unique among an often homophobic and heteronormative men’s sports culture — even as the media and culture at large wants to heterosexualize women’s sports. For many years, women’s sports has struggled against the stereotype that all women athletes are lesbians, while also facing the reality that many of them are.

The intra-league romantic relationships are not a new phenomenon, even if they are more visible now than they have been in the past. The All-American Girls Professional Baseball League, the World War II-era league that inspired the 1992 film “A League of Their Own,” did everything they could to ensure that their players were perceived as straight, including implementing a “no fraternization” policy designed to discourage player relationships. Even still, they existed, and women were sent home from the league or traded away if those relationships were discovered.

In the 1970s and ’80s, the National Women’s Football League boasted a variety of teammate romances, locker room hookups and flings among rivals. As I discovered while reporting “Hail Mary,” my book on the league, many of the players on these teams would leave practice and hang out with each other at their local lesbian bar; they were teammates, but also friends who existed in shared community. At the time, though, it wasn’t safe to be publicly out, so most of the women never discussed their sexual orientation in the media…

…These visible relationships serve to normalize queerness on a large, public scale. And they also introduce mainstream culture to a different way of thinking about relationship and community, one where exes frequently coexist and interact with one another — something familiar to any person who has ever walked into a lesbian bar and seen their friend making out with their ex while another ex is sipping a drink at the next table…

…But the benefits of queer existence should not just serve as teaching moments for straight fans; these relationships are, first and foremost, a beacon to queer fans. Sports — particularly men’s sports — is often a place where queer folks don’t feel safe. But when you know there are large numbers of athletes on the field who are gay, it signals to queer fans that the space is for them.

In fact, there are some women’s sports fans who got into the league because of how openly and visibly queer the players were.”[1]

Women’s professional sport was always a gender transgressive arena. It is disturbing to see how much Christians want to seek to make this one of the most important cultural issues. You can't save western civilisation by advocating for one of the hobby horses of the feminists. 

List of References


Monday 22 January 2024

Out of Date?


One of the biggest flaws in the modern evangelical interpretation of the Bible is the mistake of assuming that because the Bible is a product from a particular era, or time, that it is a product of that particular era or time.

But the Apostles, early believers and early church faced opposition on virtually every point of their teaching; including their teaching on gender roles and sexual morality. None of the Christian morality that was preached by the Apostle's was consistent with that held by the Romans, and nor was their understanding of gender roles. Romans and Greeks had female ministers and priests in their temples, and there were even mystery cults which taught people to avoid marriage to pursue particular religious or secular pursuits. But in the midst of all of this the New Testament remained consistent in its teaching, and only until the advent of modern feminism was it really questioned.

Before that the teaching they gave was viewed as of vital importance and necessary to preserve the church.

Of course the fact that we have rejected all their advice and the church has taken a nosedive in the West faster than almost any other religion in history could be a complete co-incidence. It isn't, but it could be...right?

Chrysostom on 1 Timothy 2:15 - "“By these means they will have no small reward on their account, because they have trained up wrestlers for the service of Christ. By holiness he means good life, modesty, and sobriety.” In other words by managing the home the mother guarantees the next generation of Christians is trained and ready to go out into the world. 

I think that if the majority of the modern evangelical church was wrong about egalitarianism then the church would be in pretty much the exact state that it is currently in. And if the early church were right to not be egalitarian, their churches would have been capable of conquering the world, because they created Christian making factories in the home. Maybe, they were right and knew what they were talking about, and the modern church is wrong? Maybe? Definitely!

A scholar called Kostenberger notes that this is what Paul was addressing in parts of his letter in Timothy,

"If these lines of thought are correct, the present passage would speak powerfully to a cultural context where many are seeking to “liberate” women from all encumbrances of family responsibilities in order to unleash them on a quest for self-fulfillment apart from such functions. Passages such as the present one appear to indicate that it is precisely by participating in her role pertaining to the family that women fulfill their central calling. Moreover, if the reference to “childbearing” should indeed be understood as a synecdoche, even unmarried women are to retain a focus on the domestic sphere and all that it entails.”

Sounds pretty relevant to today doesn't it? Paul views aren't out of date. They are the key to a better future for the western church. 


Saturday 20 January 2024

Safest In The Home


I am a few days away from finishing my next book, which I will begin talking about on the blog soon. It just needs some final editing to a few sections and then it is sent off. In the meantime I thought I would share an excerpt from one of the articles that I used in the book.

In 1 Timothy 2:15 Paul says something very interesting, “Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.” This is perhaps one of the most contentious verses in the Bible. But Köstenberger, the researcher, does a fantastic job of getting to heart of what this verse is saying. Here are some excerpts from his article that I drew on for a small section in the work I was writing:

 P 109, “In the light of this unsettled situation, are we  seeking to do the impossible by writing yet another piece on this inscrutable verse? Perhaps, but one might be forgiven a little foolishness when the topic is as significant as that addressed by the present passage, i.e., women s God-ordained roles. It should also be acknowledged that this issue, like few others, has enormous implications on the educational, social, and political domain.”

1 Timothy 5:14-15, “14 So I would have younger widows marry, bear children, manage their households, and give the adversary no occasion for slander. 15 For some have already strayed after Satan.”

P112, “By these means they will have no small reward on their account, because they have trained up wrestlers for the service of Christ. By holiness he means good life, modesty, and sobriety.” Chrysostom in Kostenberger.

Pp114, Luther in Kostenberger, “It is a very great comfort that a woman can be saved by bearing children, etc. That is, she has an honorable and salutary status in life if she keeps busy having children. We ought  to recommend this passage to them, etc. She is described as “saved” not for freedom, for license, but for bearing and rearing children.”

P115, “Let us learn therefore that if a woman be among her household and be busied about her children... if she bears it patiently, knowing that it is God’s good appointment,... this is a sweet smelling sacrifice to him. Let the nuns therefore tarry still in their convents and cloisters and in their brothel houses of Satan...”

P121, “Seventh, it is held that the present passage indicates that women shall be preserved (or shall escape from) Satan (or the consequences of the curse) by adhering to their God-ordained role in the domestic sphere.”

P130, “1 Tim 2:15, likewise, should therefore be understood as a reference to the woman’s escape or  preservation from a danger by means of childbearing. Moreover, as in the above examples,  what a person is saved from is implied rather than explicitly stated; merely the way of escape is given. But the context always suggests a given danger, be it death by drowning or by the hand of the enemy. What is therefore the most likely danger or enemy from which the woman escapes or is preserved in the present context? Arguably, it is the serpent, or Satan, and perhaps the temptation provided by it.”

Pp131-132, “The consistency with which the theme of preservation is sounded particularly in 1 and 2 Timothy is indeed remarkable. References to preservation from Satan (or the lack thereof) in the context of the present passage include 1 Tim 1:20 on the one hand and 1 Tim 3:6 and 7 on the other. It should also be noted that 2 Timothy is framed by significant “preservation” passages, i.e., 2 Tim 1:12 and 4:18. The Pastorals’ “preservation theme” may be considered to be a subcategory of the concept of perseverance versus apostasy, involving also numerous exhortations to Timothy to “escape” and “pursue” (feàge, d…wke; cf., e.g., 1 Tim 6:11; 2 Tim 2:22).”

P 134, “The effect of subverting natural family structures appears to have been a major characteristic of the heresy behind 1 Timothy. The author of this epistle counteracts this aberration by maintaining that true Christianity undergirds and dignifies rather than subverting or obliterating the natural order.”

139, “Eve, it is said, was deceived and fell into transgression. Christian women, on the other hand, will escape or be kept safe from Satan, if they adhere to their God-given domestic role. Thus, by implication, Eve fell, because she failed to keep her proper domain and, by leaving it, became vulnerable to the serpent’s false teaching (cf. 2 Cor 11:2-3).”

142, “The sense of the injunction in the present passage is thus that women can expect to escape Satan under the condition of adhering to their God-ordained role centering around the natural household.”

143, “If these lines of thought are correct, the present passage would speak powerfully to a cultural context where many are seeking to “liberate” women from all encumbrances of family responsibilities in order to unleash them on a quest for self-fulfillment apart from such functions. Passages such as the present one appear to indicate that it is precisely by participating in her role pertaining to the family that women fulfill their central calling. Moreover, if the reference to “childbearing” should indeed be understood as a synecdoche, even unmarried women are to retain a focus on the domestic sphere and all that it entails.”[i]

Essentially he argues that Paul is saying the woman will be much better protected in the home from the devil’s schemes, than she will in the wider society. As this was one of the key arguments of my upcoming book, it was pretty exciting to see an eminent researcher back this up with some very detailed and grounded scholarly research. The whole article is worth a read, though it is on the technical side, because it shows very clearly that many of us in the modern world get a lot wrong when it comes to how we think about structuring our families. There is so much good advice in the Bible that is just plain ignored, and the fruit this is bearing out is obviously bad. We need to get back to biblical basics. 

List of References

[i] Kostenberger, Simon J. 1997, “Ascertaining Women’s God-Ordained Roles: An Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:15”, Bulletin For Biblical Research, 7: pp. 107-144. 

Friday 19 January 2024

Feminism in its Proto-form


To whom did the early “evangelical feminists”, the women who are lauded by modern egalitarian Christians, look to for their inspiration? Let’s hear it from them in their own words:

“Freedom for the peasants was found alone at night. Known as the Birds of the Night, Foxes and Birds of Prey, it was only at these night assemblages they enjoyed the least happiness or security. Here, with wives and daughters, they met together to talk, of their gross outrages. Out of these foul wrongs grew the sacrifice of the "Black Mass," with woman as officiating priestess, in which the rites of the Church were travestied in solemn mockery, and defiance cast at that heaven which seemed to permit the priest and lord alike to trample upon all the sacred rights of womanhood in the names of religion and law.

During this mocking service a true sacrifice of wheat was offered to the Spirit of the Earth who made wheat to grow, and loosened birds bore aloft to the God of Freedom the sighs and prayers of the serfs asking that their descendants might be free. We can not do otherwise than regard this sacrifice as the most acceptable offering made in that day of moral degradation, a sacrifice and prayer more holy than all the ceremonials of the Church. This service, where woman, by virtue of her greater despair, acted both as altar and priest, opened by the following address and prayer: "I will come before Thine altar, but save me, O Lord, from the faithless and violent man!" (from the priest and the baron). From these assemblages, known as "Sabbat," or "the Sabbath," from the old Pagan Midsummer-day sacrifice to "Bacchus Sabiesa," rose the belief in the "Witches' Sabbath," which for several hundred years formed a new source of accusation against women, and sent tens of thousands of them to the most horrible death.”

This the source of this comment: Stanton, Elizabeth Cady; Anthony, Susan B.; Gage, Matilda; Blatch, Harriot Stanton; Harper, Ida H.. The Complete History of the Suffragette Movement - All 6 Books in One Edition): The Battle for the Equal Rights: 1848-1922 (p. 1325). Musaicum Books. Kindle Edition. In this chapter the feminists are writing a history of their own movement and how it manifested in different points in history. They found their inspiration in the witches of the medieval era who stuck it to the patriarchy. 

When people tell you who their inspiration is, you should listen to them. Evangelical feminism rose out of witchcraft. When you qualify a noun with another word you completely change its meaning. Because ‘feminism’ often follows ‘evangelicalism’ people believe that the feminism is Christian in its variety. However, it is more accurate to the philosophy of the movement which had the stated goal of bringing down the patriarchy, meaning God the father, the priesthood (which is male) and the father as head of the home, to observe that it should be written like this; feministic evangelicalism. As evangelicalism is anything but feministic, this means that feministic evangelicalism is not Christian in any shape or form. But you don’t need me spelling this out for you in this way, you have now read their inspiration: witches meeting in black sabbaths casting curses on the church and male led society. Feminism is rebellion and rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, only in this case it is explicitly already also literal witchcraft.

Many modern evangelical women are not aware of this history at all. But the spirit of the movement is still manifest in many of their lives. They think that they need not submit under male headship in the church. And they do not believe that their husbands are over them in the home. So, while they may not explicitly practice these night meetings in sacred groves like the proto-feminists, their rebellion is still manifest. The spirit of evangelical feminism has not changed, it has just become much more sophisticated; the woman still desires to have her man, that is, she desires to rule over him. This was the same spirit in those sacred grove services. It was the stated goal of the suffragettes, who required the alliance of the state to achieve this goal, hence feminism became a voting rights movement. And it is the character of many women today who follow in the footsteps of our culture to dominate the men around them, and then justify this as being God’s will.

As long as this continues and as long as this goes unchallenged in any serious way in evangelical circles, the slow march of the spirit of “the God of Freedom” will continue throughout our churches. And the god of freedom they are referring to is not the God of the Bible.

Thursday 18 January 2024

How To Attract A Woman


I was having a conversation with a young man not that long ago and he said two things which were interesting because they are pretty common and I think they need addressing: 1) there are no good women out there, 2) even if there were he was not sure how to attract them. I think this is a common sentiment among many of today’s young men. So, I thought I might write a few observations and some advice in this regard.

Firstly, the statement that there are no good women anymore is both absolutely correct and terribly wrong. It is correct in the sense that there is none who are good, no not one among humanity; we are all sinners.[1]. I am not just saying this as some kind of theological cliché to be cute. Think about the implications of this statement, there has never been a perfect generation of women. There may be ways in which some women in a particular generation show more positive attributes and some women in another generation show more negative attributes, but women have always been fallen. Because of this they have also always been hypergamous, they have always been prone to contention with their husbands (going back to Eve and the curse in Genesis 3), and they have always been prone to other feminine weaknesses. Women have their flaws, we men have ours. This is true across the generations.  

You can read a history of France and see how women came to dominate the court of the Bourbons in the later years of their dynasty. You can see with true clarity how Louis the XVI was completely overrun and dominated by his wife, Marie Antoinette, and you can see how this weakness put the throne of the kingdom in a far more precarious position than it should have been in, even in a contentious climate. You can read a history of the Islamic Mogul rulers of India and see how even though these men lived in one of the most patriarchal societies that can be even imagined by the modern man, with their harems filled with feminine delights from across their empire and beyond, still you will see that women came to dominate these courts as well. This is common in polygamous cultures, women often become the powers behind the scenes, because they compete against each other to get their own sons on the throne. I cannot remember which precise ruler this was, but one Byzantine emperor is reported to have told his successor not to allow women into the court because of the issues it would cause. Whichever emperor said that has surely been vindicated by the French disasters, the Mogul disasters and many others in history.[2]

You can even read this sort of insight in the Bible, 

16 The Lord said: Because the daughters of Zion are haughty and walk with outstretched necks, glancing wantonly with their eyes, mincing along as they go, tinkling with their feet, 17 therefore the Lord will strike with a scab the heads of the daughters of Zion, and the Lord will lay bare their secret parts” (Isaiah 3:16-17).

There is nothing about the way these women are described in Isaiah that separates them from many of the feminism influenced women of our day. Of course, it would be just as false to say that no generation is worse than any other, the books of Judges, and 1 and 2 Kings, among others in the Bible, show that some generations are far worse than others on average. Yet, still, you should not forget that men of every generation have had to contend with pursuing women in a fallen world, who were corrupted by sin, just as men are, and who therefore had all sorts of ungodly expectations and beliefs. A Victorian woman may have been much more likely to be chaste, but her hypergamy was backed up by an entire structure designed to perpetuate class. Imagine how difficult this made it for many younger men of no means to land a wife? Yet men still managed.  

Yes, women are less likely to be virgins today. But so are men, and even more pertinent is that many more men are likely to be corrupted by porn than men of the past; it is not just men who face worse prospects in dating than some other generations. Yes, women are less likely to come from a complete home. But so are men. Every generation has had to face its own particular challenge and you can only play the hands that you have been dealt. You may have less pure women to select from, but you don’t have to worry about Napoleon drafting you on your marriage day and frog marching you into the ranks of another one of his self-aggrandizing battles that were draining France of her young men. There is no use complaining about your situation. Also many women who have previously lacked morals have turned into good wives. I would never advise a young man to pursue a woman who was incredibly promiscuous by deliberate strategy, but remember that Rahab ended up being a faithful woman in the lineage of David and the Lord Jesus himself. Women, as with men, can be transformed, and many people, even people who have made many mistakes, long to settle down and have a family. So, yes, modern women have been corrupted in a lot of instances, just as have men.  

But the statement that there are no good women is also incredibly wrong. I see many young married men and women of incredible character. I see many young unmarried men and women of incredible character. If there are no women like this in your circles, you are in the wrong circles, obviously. And I am not saying these are perfect women, because such women will not be found. But young women who have done the right thing in the realm of sex and have been raised to be mothers are out there, and they appear to be increasing in number. When I became a Christian and said that I wanted to marry a Christian woman, one of my brother’s friends said to me, “How are you going to find a good Christian woman? The church makes up only 3% of the population, and young eligible women are a small percentage of that?” I just said, it won’t be hard. And it wasn’t. Because in church there are plenty of young eligible women and the percentage of them in church is all that mattered in the end. Not the percentage in society. You don’t try and date at a population level selection, you select dates in specific contexts through your social network. 

I frankly think young men who talk too much about how there are no good women out there have spent too much time hearing that from redpill guys online who have some kind twisted motivation to try and stop other men from getting married. Just shut those guys out, join a good church, go to Christian social events and say high to people, you’ll have a very high chance of meeting someone you could marry. If there are not many young women your age in your church you don’t need to get up and leave your church either. You are more likely to meet someone at social events than actually at church. My observation, going back to well into my early years as a Christian, is that in church the young men and women, on average, spend so much time correctly seeing each other as brothers and sisters in Christ, that they incorrectly struggle to bridge this divide to begin a relationship that can lead to marriage when the time is right. There are plenty of exceptions to this, but I find it remarkable how many young men and women find the person they want to marry not at their own church but at Bible college, or youth camps, or some other social adventure. That’s just something to think about.  

But now for the second statement, how to attract a young woman. Just be handsome, right. I suspect someone has told you at some point, “Just be yourself.” This is often bad advice, unless yourself is someone who has no trouble meeting with and engaging with the opposite sex. But if that was how you were you would not be thinking, “How do I attract a woman?” When it comes to this some of the principles are as old as time itself. There is the funny passage in scripture where Jacob meets Rachel for the first time and we read this,

“9 While he was still speaking with them, Rachel came with her father's sheep, for she was a shepherdess. 10 Now as soon as Jacob saw Rachel the daughter of Laban his mother's brother, and the sheep of Laban his mother's brother, Jacob came near and rolled the stone from the well's mouth and watered the flock of Laban his mother's brother” (Genesis 29:9-10).

There is something said for being strong and confident. As soon as Jacob saw this beautiful woman coming, and we know she is beautiful because the rest of the story bears this out, he sought to gain her interest with his feats of strength. Of course, it was more important for him to get her father on side, but still his masculine biology kicked into gear, and he put on a display of strength for a woman, just like we have all seen other young men do in front of young women. This is basic human behaviour; pretty girls like a measure of strength in their man. So doing weights and making decisions which can help your confidence are wise things to do. Of course, you want to make sure you are a man of character as well, that is a given, but don’t overlook those basic things which attract the opposite sex. How many times and ways does the Bible encourage men to be strong, to be defenders, to be providers? Strength is overlooked by many modern men, don’t overlook it.

But the even more important thing a Christian young man can do to make himself notable to young Christian women around him is to get involved in some level of Christian ministry. I don’t mean you have to go to Bible college and become a pastor, though many men have found their wives that way, I simply mean get involved and serve.

Despite knowing how annoyed at this I know some Christians will get, it must be stated that Christian women are just as hypergamous as non-Christian women. With Christian women of lower character you might not be able to distinguish between the men they date and the men non-Christian women date. But you are not looking for such a woman. You are looking for a Christian woman of strong character. Someone who is not focused on wealth, looks, or other worldly things. These kinds of women exist but they are still hypergamous. The difference is that they factor in the way that other men and people in the church accept you as a leader or man of note in the community as part of their way of ranking you. For many of these women it will not necessarily be conscious, but for some it will be. Why do you think pastors are rarely single and are often married to woman who are prettier than the average, even if the pastor himself is relatively average? Because in Christian circles the young Christian man who has note in the church matters to a good Christian woman. She wants a man who is serving for Christ in an admirable way and is recognized for this. This is true for men who serve at all different levels in the church as well.

Now, I am not saying that you should go to Bible College and become a pastor just so you can get a pretty wife. That would be foolish. If you don’t have that call on your life you will not last the distance and you will lead a poor woman on and cause yourself no end of troubles. What I am saying is that there are basic human realities and understanding them can help you to know the kind of young Christian man you should be seeking to become. Christian women are trained, whether intentionally or not, to reframe their hypergamy through Christian principles. But the hypergamy is still there. You can make this work in your favour by putting into practice the things that the scriptures asks of a young man; to be faithful in their service in the church community, working hard to become a provider, using your gifts in the church, etc, etc. If you do these things you will find yourself working alongside a young woman at some point who is a potential, even likely, marriage partner. She will likely have been alongside you longer than you realized waiting for you to notice her. I was not aware of any of this when I was young, but I have observed it more and more as I have gotten older.

The reason you go to church should not be to find a wife. The reason you go there should be to worship God, become more faithful in your walk with him, contribute to the Christian community and be challenged to grow in your faith. It just so happens that the men who really focus on this and become an intrinsic part of their church or Christian community almost always quickly find a good wife. I have seen it again and again and again.

So, in summary, don’t listen to those who say there are no good women. Why defeat yourself before you have even begun to run the race? Why take marriage or dating advice from people that admit they have done terribly at it their whole lives? That is the kind of men who make up much of the redpill community. Also recognize that many generations of ordinary men have found that attracting a good wife is not that hard, when they are dedicated to doing the kinds of things that good women find attractive. So, focus on doing those things.

[1] C.f. Romans 3 for this theology.

[2] Including modern parliaments of course.