Trump’s Most Valuable Superpower

 

One of the most valuable contributions that Trump has ever given us is that he causes the establishment to make so many unforced errors. This is one of the reasons why he is so popular and will remain so, even though many of us who have supported him recognize his flaws, and they are many (I will address one in an upcoming post).

There are many middle class respectable people that cannot understand why Trump has such powerful support, it is simply because he sticks it to the establishment in an entertaining way, and he drives so many to TDS (Trump derangement syndrome) that it causes them to reveal so much of how the US empire, and the world, actually work. Thanks to Trump it is now mainstream knowledge that who the president is does not really matter as far as American policy goes. Thanks to Trump we have had many other reveals over the years. Just him being their creates these reveal, because he triggers the establishment so thoroughly. 

Trump’s mean tweets don’t even begin to take away from how valuable this is for the general populace to know how so much of the society they took for granted is actually a front for some seriously powerful and corrupt figures who actually control things behind closed doors. Biden has only been President in name, he is a husk, a shell, he is not capable of leading himself around the White House, let alone a country. But that does not matter when it comes to running the US, as Caitlyn notes. It has long been ruled by silent powers behind the scenes. 

What else will be common knowledge by the time Trump is done? Just his presence causes such hysteria amongst the establishment that it force them to reveal themselves. What else will be revealed? 

Are Millennials Boomers 2.0?

 

I have heard some say that the Millennials are shaping up to be the Boomer generation 2.0. I have not really thought that myself, considering that Millennials have nowhere near the same amount of wealth, the same hold on power, the same tendency to ignore their families, nor as much of a cohesive generational identity as the boomers, though maybe this latter point is incorrect, which we will come back to. 

However, I read this article the other day, and it sounded like it was written by a boomer. I actually double checked who wrote it, just to see if it was written by a boomer or not. It is not,

“My generation – those born roughly between 1981 and 1996 – were talked and written about endlessly by the media, our every characteristic salivated over, scrutinised, scorned. For more than a decade, we were creatures of fascination, our cohort a byword for all things trendy. We were flat white-drinking hipsters; avocado-on-toast-eating snowflakes; fans of rose-gold finishings and the inspiration behind an era-defining eponymous shade of muted baby pink.

Though we hadn’t grown up online, we’d got our first mobiles in our teens, smartphones in our twenties, and were the right-aged demographic for the launches of the first mainstream social media platforms of MySpace and Facebook, making us more tech-savvy than our predecessors. While we were often blamed for the entire world’s problems – the banking crash and global recession weren’t the reason we couldn’t afford houses, it was our own profligate purchasing of pumpkin-spiced lattes – we were also, undeniably, the hip young things. Boomers were past it, mocked for their lack of internet literacy; Gen X had no real defining traits, or at least none that could be summed up in a snappy headline.

For my twenties and much of my thirties, I experienced an en masse version of “main character syndrome” – millennials were the stars, outshining our out-of-touch forebears. Anything and everything we did was, by default, interesting and cutting edge.

Of course it was inevitable that the new would become tired, the young, old. That’s the thing about the unstoppable passage of time, right? But nothing quite prepared us for the slow, inexorable slide from relevant tastemakers to figures of fun.

I first noticed the turning of the tide a few years ago, when articles started to appear detailing the emojis that marked you out as a millennial. Gen Z – those born between 1997 and 2012 – wouldn’t be caught dead using the crying-laughing face, nor the thumbs up (branded “hostile”), nor the grimacing face. Green ticks were out, as were clapping hands and monkeys covering their eyes: all staunch millennial favourites.

From there, the derision worsened. The term “cheugy” was born, encapsulating all that was deemed basic, try-hard, outdated – a list essentially comprising stereotypical millennial attributes. Gen Z mocked us mercilessly on TikTok; all that had once made us trendsetters now flagged us as irredeemable losers. Being an adult who liked Harry Potter, Disney or Friends made you cheugy. Wearing skinny jeans made you cheugy. Wearing your hair in a side parting made you cheugy. Heck, even drinking a Starbucks made you cheugy. Oh, how the mighty had fallen!”[1]

The whole article reads like someone who is jaded that they are no longer the centre of attention, or considered cool by the younger generations. It is one of the cringiest things I have read on this kind of topic and it reads like it was written by a Boomer mocking the Millennials. Imagine caring whether or not the next generation thought you were cool or not? What a strange worldview to live in. I am sure the person who wrote this might have been trying to have a bit of fun, but it did not read that way at all.

Of course, this does not mean that we should not care about the next generation, of course we should. Just not about whether they think we are cool. We should be thinking about how we can improve this society for them, so they can continue this legacy on for the generations below them. The Boomer generation, as a whole (and yes I know there are exceptions) stripmined all of our culture and society to their benefit, and are leaving the younger generations around to deal with their mess. And herein lies an important point.

While the Boomer generation is essentially unified in its worldview and experience, because they grew up with the same three TV channels showing basically the same kinds of shows, and the same three radio stations playing the same kinds of music, and therefore they were all prone to basically the same psy-ops, the Millennial generation is unified in this one experience: we were raised by the Boomers, almost exclusively. So while the society we grew up in was not quite as unified in media and cultural experiences, though it still was to some degree, we are all stamped by our experience with the Boomers. In this way we have a similar unifying experience that the Boomers had by virtue of being raised by them. Therefore, we need to be very careful that we recognize this and don’t mirror the behaviour of the Boomers.

They say that those who are traumatized are prone to pass on the same trauma. Without a doubt most Millennials are stamped with a certain cultural trauma because of the way they have been raised by the Boomers. No generation is perfect of course, this is a sinful, fallen world, but different generations emphasize unique distinctions and this quote from this woman who wrote the article is telling,

“For my twenties and much of my thirties, I experienced an en masse version of “main character syndrome” – millennials were the stars, outshining our out-of-touch forebears. Anything and everything we did was, by default, interesting and cutting edge.”

Imagine thinking you were one of the main characters of the world? What a narcissistic worldview. However, this is not that different to the Boomer pretension to be the “Greatest Generation” with the greatest music and the greatest achievements. It’s a diminished version of it, of course, but it is still narcissistic. I remember to some degree how much Millennials were pilloried in the media not that long ago, especially by the Boomers, who saw us as layabouts, drifters, and unserious, but I never really internalized it or cared about it. Why would you care about it?

But maybe many other Millennials do care about it? If this is generationally pervasive, then this is something to be aware of, identify and reject. We should not define ourselves by our generation, we have no control if other generations seek to define us that way, but we can control how we think about ourselves, and we should define ourselves by how we conduct ourselves in light of our duty to make this world a better place for the next generations. This is far, far more important than being seen as cool or not. The young don't need us to be cool, they need us to stabilise this sinking ship. 

One more thing, the author notes how Zoomers mock Millennials "for our nostalgia and perceived earnestness.” The nostalgia point is spot on. Millennials were the last generation to really experience the greatness of the West, and the greatness of what our culture could be across the board, before the decline became truly set in and obvious. We can face the danger of getting stuck in the past like Boomers, rather than looking to the future like we should be. It’s one thing to enjoy an old album, movie or book, it is another to be defined by it, as Boomers are by the Beetles, The Who, or Led Zepplin, and the anti-traditional culture "heroes" they saw in the movies and books they grew up with. I tend to think this is contributing to why so many movies and shows are so bad now. They are being driven by an increasingly influential Millennial cohort stuck in a nostalgia loop, seeking to put themselves in their own fanfiction. Though there is more to it than that, I think this is a significant part of it.

So, maybe there is some truth in the idea that Millennials are trending to becoming a Boomer generation 2.0. Maybe that is too harsh a sentiment considering we have far less wealth and opportunity than the Boomers. But what we do have is plenty of time to invest in the future generations. Not to make them think we are cool, but so that we can turn this ship of society around. We are getting older, and we are meant to, let's age with dignity, and by that I mean, let’s age with a view towards lifting up those who come after us, and not trying to cling onto an image of coolness that is completely meaningless.

List of References

---

[1] Helen Coffey, 2024, "How millennials became the least cool generation," https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/millennials-gen-z-uncool-boomers-socks-b2568557.html

Why I Am Not A Conservative

 

I have written on this before, but I think it is helpful to write about this again at this present moment. The response of many of my conservative friends, and they are good and decent advocates for the good on many issues, to the release of Julian Assange, highlights one of the key differences between where I sit, and where conservatives generally sit. Many of them are offended that there is a large segment of the right side of politics celebrating the release of Julian Assange, they cannot understand why this man, who they see as basically an anarchist, could garner so much support from some on the right (as well as the left). I can’t speak for others on the right, but I can speak for myself.

I am not a political conservative, I actually find the conservative worldview quite abhorrent in many ways, and lacking in many others for facing the moment in which we are. I do associate in what are generally conservative circles, and I agree with political conservatives on many individual issues, and yet I disagree with them also on many others. Perhaps my political persuasion comes close to the Paleo-Conservative position, I believe Tucker Carlson is a Paleo-Conservative, and there is not much in what he said in his recent speech in Canberra that I could not say amen to. Paleo-conservatives are generally protectionist, against wars of aggression, that is non-interventionist, and generally believers in smaller government. They do tend to advocate for free speech, of which I am no longer an advocate, but in general I find a lot more to like in their position than the Neo-Conservative position which dominates much of the conservative centre right today. Neo-Conservatism is a cancer in the West today, a terrible ideology. It is my affinity with many Paleo-conservative positions that causes many people to confuse me for a conservative. But I am not.

I am not trying to be clever here, either. I would simply describe myself as a Christian Nationalist, that is someone who believes that we should do all that we can to advocate for the obedience of the gospel in our nation. Something akin to what the Apostle Paul was looking towards,

“1 Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, 2 which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, 3 concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh 4 and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, 5 through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations, 6 including you who are called to belong to Jesus Christ,” (Rom. 1:1-6).

Paul preached a message that called for all to come to an obedience of Jesus Christ, as he says here, “5 through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations, 6 including you who are called to belong to Jesus Christ…” The fact that he clearly distinguished between “all the nations and “you who are called to belong to Jesus Christ” shows that Paul believed that Christianity would and should have a massive impact on changing nations, that is peoples, not just Christians and Churches. He was thinking bigger than just the international church here, he was thinking about nations being brought more and more in line with Christian teaching. This Christian influence would spread and change the nations. The beauty of this verse is that we have seen it fulfilled in many ways throughout history where the gospel actually did transform nations, led to changes in laws, and created a very different world to the one in which Rome was originally founded.

Now, I know some conservatives will be reading this, and saying, “Amen, brother, we are on the same page here.” I know that because I have spoken with some of them personally on this issue. But there is still a big key difference. The conservative looks at our nation and says, “See these institutions, they are good, were set up for good reasons, and therefore we have to preserve them.” Whereas I look at them and say, “Some were relatively good, and were sometimes set up for good reasons, but they have failed to preserve the nation, they have failed to preserve the faith of the nation, and they may have even contributed to this decline, therefore, maybe it is time for new wineskins, because the old ones have failed.” This is inherently a transformationist position, rather than a conservative position. You could argue that it is a progressive position, but that term has become loaded with too many associations with social justice, leftist anarchy and degeneracy. I want to see society transformed by the message of the gospel of salvation, and if institutions stand in the way of this, then our loyalty should be to the call of the message of the gospel and its implications for society, not structures.

Our structures are not eternal, they were placed there by people who believed the previous structures had served their purpose. In many societies we see this renewal and regeneration of the institutions that run the society. One of the things you learn from reading the history of the Roman empire is that every few generations a new emperor would come along and change the structure of the society, even revise the laws (like Justinian for instance), to help the empire function better. This prevented the fall of Rome several times in the post Antonine period, and strengthened Roman society. Constantine’s removal of the centre of the Empire to Byzantium from the city of Rome itself, is just one example. Sometimes they restructured the army and the provinces, sometimes they restructured the role of the nobility, either way their desire was to preserve the society and serve the people of Rome better and protect it from internal decay and threats, and it did serve this purpose. The problem with long established structures is that it can lead to an entrenched elite that become self-serving, and self-perpetuating, and this can stifle the whole society. These emperors knew this, and so worked hard to counterbalance this.

Progressives actually understand that this is necessary to help work towards the kind of society they envision. Conservatives simply react ineffectually against this. Think about it, what have conservatives managed to preserve? At this point not much. We should think in terms of transformation, not conservation. This begins with the work of the preaching of the gospel which changes hearts and it should flow on to a people who are willing to evaluate all the structures of our society and ask, “Are they serving the people, or can another structure serve them better?” This is the difference between the transformationist perspective and the conservative one.

I will use an illustration of the rusted car to show why my position is so different to conservatism.

A conservative looks at this rusted car, and sees that it generally still holds shape, and so they are ok with giving it a new lick of paint, some new tires, and a change of the spark plugs. Never mind the fact that rust has set in and this rust is a cancer that will kill this car. As long as they can conserve what we know have, they have achieved the limits of their goals.

A transformationist, who wants to see our nation revitalized as a nation unto Christ, looks at this rusted car, and realizes it needs a complete rebuild. It needs to be stripped down to the bare chassis, lifted on a hoist and sand blasted and then rebuilt from the ground up with all new parts, long before you even paint it. But more than that they realize that this car needs to be given a solid front axel and front diff, because the roads are rougher than they used to be and it needs 4wd, and it needs bigger tyres for the same reason. And the engine needs to not just be rebuilt but bored out to give it a larger capacity and more power, and then it needs to be fitted with a better quality exhaust, Brembo brakes for stopping power to handle the extra power, and more. The car does not just need to be rebuilt, it needs to be modified because the world in which it exists now has changed heaps from the one in which it was originally built, and we have learnt that though those who built it may have done so with good intentions, their design fell far short of achieving its purpose.

God’s own constitution for his own people needed renewing and transforming, how much more do human systems and structures?

Conservatism is holding onto a rusted-out wreck, progressives are seeking to replace that wreck with a strange hover craft boat thing that cannot really work. What we need is a new and improved vehicle. 

As Christians we should be looking at the past and learning, looking at the present and observing, and looking towards the future and evaluating how we can transform society so that our children do not face the same problems we do today.

That’s why I am not a conservative. Assange, whose personal character may fall far short of being a good man, I am not an expert on him, is notable because he revealed that the political edifice is far more rusted internally than we once realized. And the elites have punished him severely for that, because they prosper in this rusted system. You can’t conserve that, the rust has set in, it is in decay. We need to think differently about how we can renew our society with better institutions. Societal collapse may come in our generation, certainly imperial decline is here, so moving forward, we should be willing to think differently than we have in the past.

What The IDF Knew

 

Some people find it hard to believe that a government could know that something bad was coming to hurt their people and yet they did not do all that they could to stop it, or even worse. I understand why some people think this, because I once thought that way as well. Most people tend to think of themselves as reasonably good, if imperfect people, who seek to do their best in their life and work as much as possible. The mistake people then make is assuming that everybody is like that, and that governments are filled with people like that. Most people are also not aware that sociopaths are more highly represented in fields like politics than they are in the general population.[1] Over the last few years more and more people’s faith in institutions has been broken down, but still many people persist in that faith. But evidence is mounting in many situations about how poorly placed that trust is.

For instance, this article from The Jerusalem Post,

“IDF knew of Hamas's plan to kidnap 250 before October 7 attack - report

The IDF had precise information about Hamas's intentions, but due to prevailing conceptions in the security establishment and possible negligence by officials, the warning signs were not acted on.

A newly surfaced document has revealed that the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) and intelligence systems had detailed knowledge of Hamas's plan to raid Israel and kidnap 250 people weeks before the October 7 massacre.

The document, which was compiled in the Gaza Division, outlined Hamas's intentions and was known to top intelligence officials, according to a report by Kan News.

The document, titled "Detailed End-to-End Raid Training," was distributed on September 19, 2023, and described in detail the series of exercises conducted by Hamas's elite units.

These exercises included raiding military posts and kibbutzim (collective communities in Israel), kidnapping soldiers and civilians, and maintaining the hostages once they were in the Gaza Strip.

The report by Kan News stated, "Security sources told Kan News that the document was known to the intelligence leadership, at the very least in the Gaza Division."[2]

The IDF knew in detail what Hamas was planning but failed to act. Why would they do this? Some might think incompetence, others malicious intent. But what is for certain is that they knew, in detail, what Hamas was planning and did not do anything to stop it. This is being reported in Israeli newspapers.

I’ll leave it to you to speculate why they may have done this. But if you found out that your government knew an attack was coming and did not put the precautions in place to stop it, would you believe a word they said about their motivations for going to war? Would you take at face value the official narrative of how everything happened? There is no doubt that Hamas did the evil attack. There is also no doubt that the IDF knew it was coming. The rest I will leave to you to think about for yourself.

At a minimum this shows that those who have a deep scepticism that many people in positions of power have the interests of their people at heart are standing on firm ground. 

While you are thinking it over you might find this article interesting to consider as well: What the World Needs To Know About Gaza.

List of References

---

[1] https://www.bustle.com/p/9-jobs-sociopaths-are-most-likely-to-have-12982458

[2] https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-806634

Your Relationship Is Not Valid

 

Sometimes you get a little window into how great the West could be if it just lifted its standards. 

“A New Zealand woman has taken her long-term boyfriend to a disputes tribunal for breaching a “verbal contract” by failing to take her to the airport, resulting in her missing a flight to a concert and forcing her to delay her travel by one day.

The woman told New Zealand’s disputes tribunal that she had been in a relationship with the man for six and a half years until the disagreement arose.

According to an order from the tribunal, released on Thursday with names redacted, the woman had arranged to attend a concert with some friends. Her boyfriend had agreed to transport her to the airport and stay at her house to look after her two dogs while she was away.

She messaged him the day before with a timeframe of 10am to 10.15am in which she would need to be collected. But he never arrived, leading the woman to miss her flight.

The woman said she incurred multiple costs as a result, including the cost of travel the next day, a shuttle to the airport and putting her dogs in a kennel…

…The woman testified that she had entered into a “verbal contract” with her partner that he would take her to the airport and look after her dogs…

…But the tribunal referee Krysia Cowie said for an agreement to be enforceable there needed to be an intention to create a “legally binding relationship”.

“Partners, friends and colleagues make social arrangements, but it is unlikely they can be legally enforced unless the parties perform some act that demonstrates an intention that they will be bound by their promises,” she wrote.

“When friends fail to keep their promises, the other person may suffer a financial consequence but it may be that they cannot be compensated for that loss.”[1]

The key point I want to draw out here is when the judge says, “there needed to be an intention to create a “legally binding relationship”. In other words, she saw no evidence that this couple had made any plans to have proper commitments, or that there was any specific legal agreement for this arrangement. Or to put it another way, the judge was telling this woman it is not the courts fault she failed to have a reliable relationship, that is her own problem.

There is a small, a very small, window here into how great the West could be if the courts would just stop rewarding or protecting those relationships which are not real commitments. One of the worst things that Aussies say is, “This is my partner.” You are not supposed to have a partner, you are supposed to have a wife, if you are a man, and a husband, if you are a woman. A partner is a someone you do business with. A partner is someone you work with. A partner is someone you might choose for a dance, or to play tennis, or some other endeavour. A wife, or a husband, is someone you have made a binding lifelong commitment to, before your fellow man and God, and you have an obligation to fulfill those commitments.

Boyfriends have no obligations to their girlfriends. Girlfriends have no obligations to their boyfriends. The kinds of relationships that most Aussies or Kiwis engage in are not binding, they are therefore not really valid, and I wish the courts would make these kinds of statements more and in more cases and situations. It would be good if a woman came to a judge and said, “He got me pregnant, he must support me”, and a judge said, “Did you make sure he was a decent bloke first who would commit to you? If not, then sorry, your fault.” It would be good if a man came to a judge and said, “That woman has my baby and I would like to see it,” and the judge said, “Did you make sure she was someone who wanted to commit? If not, not our problem."

I know some Christians will find this highly offensive, especially white knight men who want to blame men for all the ills in society. But the truth is that the state and the courts have a large responsibility in our society for the destructive path our nation has gone down and the way they have both worked together to legitimize illegitimate relationships again and again has led to many of the social ills we face. Women should not be rewarded by the hand of the state for entering into a non-committing and spurious relationship that leaves them stranded and without support. Men, likewise, should not be rewarded by the state for entering into a non-committing and spurious relationship.

I would love to hear more judges say, there was no “intention to create a ‘legally binding relationship’,” so your problems are not the court's problems. If the law did more of what this judge did in more situations, the pain of bad choices might start to remind more and more people in our society that God intended sex for marriage for a reason, because outside of marriage there are none of the same levels of commitment and protection built in that there are inside of committed marriages.

Of course, someone might respond, “Well, people don’t take marriages seriously also.” But if you needed to get married to ensure you had the same protections in the case of things going sour, then maybe people would. We need to stop legitimizing illegitimate relationships, if we want people to realize there is a difference between a legitimate relationship and an illegitimate one. Make consequences for ignoring God’s law great again, and by that I mean, make them more manifest and backed up by law, so that people will realize that they can’t just ignore everything God says and then expect the state to enforce agreements that were never made.

List of References

---

[1] Caitlin Cassidy, 2024, “New Zealand woman takes boyfriend to disputes tribunal because he didn’t take her to the airport,” https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jun/21/new-zealand-woman-takes-boyfriend-to-disputes-tribunal-because-he-didnt-take-her-to-the-airport

Why I Am Not Roman Catholic

 

A good friend of mine asked me a week or so ago why I am not a Catholic. He noted that there is a growing trend of strong advocates for Christianity online who are either Catholic or Orthodox, and he said they were happy to explain why they were Catholic or Orthodox, could I explain why I am not Roman Catholic. I thought this would make a good short blog post.

This blog is not an attack on Catholics or Orthodox. I have strong disagreements with teachings and elements among the Catholic and Orthodox churches, but I do not spend much time critiquing their problems, because I see enough errors in the Protestant Church which need addressing. I don’t think it is an exaggeration to say that the Protestant Church is about as corrupt today as the Catholic Church was in the days of the early Reformation period. From rainbow flags over churches, to many churches not understanding how the people of God are properly constituted, to pastors using their privilege and position to fleece the flock, and a whole host of other issues, I can think of many criticisms of the modern evangelical Church. Yet I am still a Protestant, and more specifically a Baptist, despite all of these known flaws in the evangelical churches. 

So why could I never be Catholic?

The core of the answer comes down what Jesus says in Mark 7 and Matthew 15 to the Pharisees and Scribes. Let’s read Mark’s framing of the account,

“7 Now when the Pharisees gathered to him, with some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem, 2 they saw that some of his disciples ate with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. 3 (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands properly, holding to the tradition of the elders, 4 and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches.) 5 And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?” 6 And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written,

“‘This people honors me with their lips,
    but their heart is far from me;
7 in vain do they worship me,
    teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’

8 You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.”

9 And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition! 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ 11 But you say, ‘If a man tells his father or his mother, “Whatever you would have gained from me is Corban”’ (that is, given to God)— 12 then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, 13 thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do.”

What is happening here is that the religious leaders of the Jews, the Scribes and the Pharisees in this case, are questing Jesus as to why he and his disciples do not live according to the teachings of their elders. The washing of hands mentioned here is not for cleanliness and hygiene, but for ritual purity. The scribes and the Pharisees believed that the traditions of the elders were a body of oral laws passed down from the time of Moses that accompanied the written law and taught how it was to be applied. But they even went beyond this, as Jesus notes, and in many ways directly contradicted the law of God. This is the core of Jesus’ issue with the “traditions of the elders”, they were anti-Scriptural and directly contradicted the teachings of God’s word on many points. 

This “traditions of the elders” is an early form of the teachings that would eventually be written down in the Bavli, or Babylonian Talmud, and the Palestinian Talmud. These two libraries of texts would record the many diverse and often contradictory teachings of the scribes and Pharisees and their descendants, for future generations of Orthodox Jews. Rabbis interpret the Bible through the lens of these traditions. The very traditions that Jesus himself rebuked and challenged them for lifting them above God’s word.

Herein lies my core issue with Catholicism: The Catholic Church, as well as the Orthodox, place the Church tradition alongside of the teaching of Scripture. In fact, you could argue that the Catholic’s view the Scriptures as part of the tradition of the Church. And this is why I cannot be Roman Catholic. Jesus says very clearly that we should not place man’s tradition alongside or above the word of God. Just one example is that Peter took his wife with him, but Catholics forbid priests from marrying. This is an example of man’s tradition contradicting the Scriptures. And many others could be made.

I know that some will point out that God has given authority to the Church to confirm the teachings of scripture, this began with the process of canonization of the Scriptures in the fourth century. But I think it is one thing for the Church to confirm the Holy Spirit inspired teachings of the Apostles, and quite another for it to add to them, and another thing again for it to abrogate them. 

In fact, I cannot understand how Catholics do not recognize that holding the Church’s traditions next to the word of God is Talmudic, it is the very error which Jesus challenged the Pharisees and Sadducees about. It is places the traditions of the Christian elders on par with the scriptures. This does not mean we should abandon all those traditions completely, reject them utterly, and not see the wisdom in learning from earlier eras of the Church. But these teachings should always be seen as secondary, and simply valued as far as they give the sense of Scripture, not where they contradict it or add to it.

One may respond in several different ways to my argument here, but one way is by noting that if you disconnect the Bible from the traditions of the Church you place it in a situation where every man will determine what is right in his own eyes, just as Israel did in the times of judges. I would respond that this is a fair, true and clearly observed problem and this can, and in fact does happen, a lot. Many of the ancient heresies of the early Church era have been manifested in some Protestant or Protestant adjacent denominations in the last couple of centuries. So, I cannot argue against this assertion, you do risk this very problem.

I would simply note that if the Protestant Church is akin to Israel under the judges, then the Roman Catholic Church is akin to Judah and Israel under the kings. The people of Israel became just as corrupted under the kings as they did under the judges. In the times of the judges you have a faithful remnant exemplified by Ruth and Boaz and Naomi, and under the times of the kings, you have a faithful remnant exemplified by the 7000 who had not bowed the knee to Baal in the time of Elijah. Neither structure seems to guarantee a faithful adherence to the doctrines of Scripture, whereas both structures have their examples of faithful remnants. Therefore, I would simply respond to my Catholic brethren don’t cast stones if you live in glass houses.  

As I said above this blog is not to be seen as a takedown of Catholicism, that is not my interest. Nor is it to be seen as a comprehensive answer to the question about why I am not Catholic. It is meant to be a simple answer getting to the core of the issue. Jesus warned us not to place the traditions of man above the traditions of God, therefore, I cannot align with a denomination that does that. Does that make the Baptist churches perfect? No, not at all. Nor are any other Protestant denominations. But we should be very careful about the level we place any man's teaching on. 

The Church universally agrees on the New Testament, the canon, therefore you stand on solid ground if you radically seek to place it as the highest authority from God for man to follow, 

"16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work" (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

Sometimes Simple Is Best

Rhetoric:

Dialectic:

In Revelation 21 we read that God shows the Bride of Christ, the Church, to John the Apostle. This is what we read, “9 Then came one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues and spoke to me, saying, “Come, I will show you the Bride, the wife of the Lamb” (Rev. 21:9). An angel says to John that he will show him the bride. Then we read this next:

“10 And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great, high mountain, and showed me the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God, 11 having the glory of God, its radiance like a most rare jewel, like a jasper, clear as crystal. 12 It had a great, high wall, with twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and on the gates the names of the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel were inscribed— 13 on the east three gates, on the north three gates, on the south three gates, and on the west three gates. 14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.”

John hears that he will see the bride of the lamb, and then he turns and is shown the city of God, Jerusalem. Just like in Revelation 5 where he is told about the lion of the tribe of Judah, but turns and sees that lamb that was slain. He hears one thing and sees another. In Revelation 5 the lion and lamb are twin images of the Lord Jesus Christ himself. In Revelation 21 the bride and the city of God are twin images of the people of God.

This image here of the city harkens back to Revelation 3 where the Church in Philadelphia is promised this,

“11 I am coming soon. Hold fast what you have, so that no one may seize your crown. 12 The one who conquers, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God. Never shall he go out of it, and I will write on him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down from my God out of heaven, and my own new name. 13 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches’” (Rev. 3:11-13).

The church in Philadelphia, and we can safely assume this promise applies to all the churches, is promised that they will be named after the city of God, the new Jerusalem. And then we see in Revelation 21 that the bride, which we know is the Church of Jesus Christ, is “the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God.” The Bible interprets itself for us there. The church is the bride and the holy city. 

If we keep reading we see that this city is constituted of the 12 tribes of the sons of Israel and the 12 Apostles of the Church,

“12 It had a great, high wall, with twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and on the gates the names of the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel were inscribed— 13 on the east three gates, on the north three gates, on the south three gates, and on the west three gates. 14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.”

So, in this passage we have one bride, which is also this one city, and this city is constituted of the faithful believers of the Old Covenant Israel and the New Covenant Church. In other words, the Church and the Israel are all part of the one people of God, the one bride of Christ, the one city of God. God has only one bride and it constitutes the people of God beginning with the work God did through Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and culminates in the people whose foundations were laid by the Apostles.

The image is clear here. We are not to see Israel and the Church as distinct images of God’s people, but as two parts of one whole, the bride, the church, the people of God. The two have been brought together, as Paul talks about in Ephesians 2. The Church of God is built upon the tribes of Israel and the Apostles re-framing of Israel in accordance with the teachings of Jesus. They are one. 

You can make this case with a simple image, or with a more detailed point by point argument. Either way, both these arguments point to a biblical reality: there is one people of God, and you can call it Israel, or the Church, either way God has only one bride.

 

Why America Will Fall

 

Every empire comes to an end. But not necessarily for the exact same reasons. There are similarities of course, because all empires overreach. All empires end up with entrenched bureaucracies which bleed initiative and effectiveness from the imperial efforts. All empires face competition from either peer enemies, or a collection of enemies that match or exceed their abilities. But the specific reasons why empires get in these situations of decline can vary. Britain lost its empire because Churchill, and the British leadership of his generation, squandered it on ensuring that Germany did not become a true continental power that could rival them and France. The Soviet Union lost its empire because its founding ideology, communism, undermined its ability to outproduce competing societies, like the United States. But the overarching similarity is that empires always collapse because they go too far in their goals and actions. They overreach. 

The same will happen with the United States,  

“…when objectives are greater than measures, then defeat is certain. Not all of today's statesmen and strategists are clear on this point. The 1996 U.S. Department of Defense Report contains this premise from President Clinton: "As the world's most powerful nation, we have a leadership obligation, and when our interests and sense of values are subject to great danger we will take action." When he spoke those words, obviously even Clinton was unaware that national interests and sense of values are strategic objectives of two completely different scales. If we say that the former is an objective which American power can protect through action, the latter is neither an objective that its power can achieve nor is an objective which the United States should pursue outside its own territory. "World's number one," an ideology corresponding to "isolationism," always makes the Americans tend to pursue unlimited objectives as they expand their national power. But this is a tendency which in the end will lead to tragedy. A company which has limited resources but which is nevertheless keen to take on unlimited responsibilities is headed for only one possible outcome, and that is bankruptcy.”[1]

In other words, the United States believes that it is their role, or calling, to ensure that other nations are conformed to their values and beliefs of nationhood. They want to use their limited resources to achieve this unlimited goal, and this will inevitably fail. To put it another way the United States wants to conform the rest of the world to its image, and it simply does not have the power to do this, but it is ideologically driven to keep trying to do this. So this can only end up in disaster.

Empires often want to conform the world into their own image. Rome sought to do this through the Pax Romana. Alexander the Great sought to do this with Hellenization. But empires always fail to achieve this goal because even mighty empires have limited power. And also, the more powerful they get, the more the people of all nations are drawn into the centre of the empire and this changes the empire from within and causes it to eventually collapse in on itself.

By the end of the Roman Empire it was neither Roman in nationality, nor language, or even culture. It was a small state on the Bosphorus (Byzantium) that spoke Greek and traced its population’s lineage to many different peoples. The American Empire is no longer led by the sons of the revolution, but by a collection of foreign peoples from all over the world, some European and many not, and very few of those leaders are of the Anglo-Saxon heritage of the dominant founding peoples of the United States. They have been overcome by the world, they sought to overcome.

The United States will fail because it is seeking to achieve something which it just does not have the ability to achieve: the conforming of the whole world to its image. The United States may have gotten into this situation for different reasons than Rome, Greece, or other empires, but the result will be the same, total and utter collapse. The irony is that the more an empire seeks to conform the world to its image, the more the world ends up conforming that empire to the various images of the people that overcome that empire. As this process of demographic change increases, the more the empire is corrupted from the inside and the less capable it becomes of achieving its overarching goals. 

You would think nations would have learnt this lesson by now. Some may have, but the United States is learning this lesson the hard way again in our time, and as a result the world is in for some years of serious tumults.

List of References

---

[1] Col. Qiao Liang and Col. Wang Xiangsui, 1999, Unrestricted Warfare, p.180.

Say the Words, “I Am Sorry.”

 

Say those words. I am sorry. They are necessary, required and just. The leaders of our nation, and indeed many nations around the world, abused their people, insulted them, attacked them, coerced them and bullied them into taking an experimental medical treatment that they did not want, or need. It is time to say sorry.

It is not like many people could not see this at the time,

"Fourth, making vaccination the basis of participating in normal life would make no logical sense in terms of protecting others. A “CDC study shows 74% of people infected in Massachusetts Covid outbreak were fully vaccinated,” especially noting that four of those who were vaccinated were admitted to hospital. As we have said, we respect people’s right and choice to be vaccinated. But this type of data, published by America’s leading body of disease experts, causes people to wonder about the effectiveness of the vaccine along with concern about coercive measures by which to have it administered.  As it is evident that vaccines do not prevent infection, to restrict a person’s access to society based on a medical choice is questionable."

- The Ezekiel Declaration, August 2021, point 4.

But many people refused to see this at the time, and now evidence is mounting that those who were warning against the lockdowns, mandates and coercion were spot on. Well, in reality it has been mounting for years, but the lame stream media is finally tolling the bell,

"Mounting evidence shows the vaccines were rushed, less effective than you’d expect of a jab, and, in some cases, dangerous.

The whole premise of mandates was to protect the community. But these vaccines didn’t stop contraction or transmission of Covid – so what exactly were we protecting?...

…Even former deputy chief medical officer Nick Coatsworth now admits he hasn’t had a Covid vaccine for two years.

If one of the most high-profile doctors in the country won’t do it, why would the rest of us?

And most of us haven’t. By May last year, nearly 17 million Australian adults had not had a booster in the past six months.”[1]

As I have said several times, in a moment of anxiety we threw away all our principles and reason as a society. A great crime was perpetrated on Australians, and many people cheered it on, and our society will not be able to truly move on until these errors are publicly acknowledged and corrected, and laws are put in place to make these errors impossible again. Or, even better, we could have just followed the laws we already had that said it was illegal to coerce people into a medical treatment all along. But why would our society follow these laws if no authorities are ever held to account by them?

Many people need to say sorry, some authorities need to be brought to account. Those who call out society wide coercion will always end up being vindicated, eventually, but if you want to avoid this kind of travesty on a national scale again, there needs to be some accountability. Otherwise, we are ripe for a fresh round of the same disaster.

It starts with saying sorry, and then the investigations. 

List of References

---

[1] Caleb Bond, 2024, Major Apology Millions of Aussies Deserve, https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/were-owed-an-apology-for-vaccine-mandates/news-story/15069d5dc78d8385788b7e7e3a4bde19

The Keys

 

If the Church is Israel, why does the Bible not just say that directly, straight up directly. If the promises of God are fulfilled in the Church, not in the secular, godless nation of Israel in the land of Canaan today, why doesn’t the Bible just say that directly, straight up directly. It does, in countless ways.

Here is one example. We read this in Revelation 3:7-13,

“7 And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: ‘The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, who shuts and no one opens.

8 “‘I know your works. Behold, I have set before you an open door, which no one is able to shut. I know that you have but little power, and yet you have kept my word and have not denied my name. 9 Behold, I will make those of the synagogue of Satan who say that they are Jews and are not, but lie—behold, I will make them come and bow down before your feet, and they will learn that I have loved you. 10 Because you have kept my word about patient endurance, I will keep you from the hour of trial that is coming on the whole world, to try those who dwell on the earth. 11 I am coming soon. Hold fast what you have, so that no one may seize your crown. 12 The one who conquers, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God. Never shall he go out of it, and I will write on him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down from my God out of heaven, and my own new name. 13 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.’”

This is directed to the predominately Gentile Church in Philadelphia, one of the two churches to receive no criticisms among the seven churches. This was a faithful church and it was under serious attack from the local non-believing Jewish community, who are described here with words reminiscent to what Jesus says in John 8:44-45. This contrast of the Synagogue of Satan should not be seen as some unrecorded esoteric historical cult, but an example of the same contrast of the people of God and the people of the devil that John shows us in 1 John 3. John is building on Jesus words from the gospel. 

So where are the direct references to the Church being Israel? Well let me draw your attention to a couple of things in the text.

Firstly, in verses 7 Jesus says, “The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, who shuts and no one opens.” What is this referring to? Well, if we go all the way back we read about a steward in the days of Hezekiah and this is what it says,

“15 Thus says the Lord God of hosts, “Come, go to this steward, to Shebna, who is over the household, and say to him: 16 What have you to do here, and whom have you here, that you have cut out here a tomb for yourself, you who cut out a tomb on the height and carve a dwelling for yourself in the rock? 17 Behold, the Lord will hurl you away violently, O you strong man. He will seize firm hold on you 18 and whirl you around and around, and throw you like a ball into a wide land. There you shall die, and there shall be your glorious chariots, you shame of your master's house. 19 I will thrust you from your office, and you will be pulled down from your station. 20 In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, 21 and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your sash on him, and will commit your authority to his hand. And he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. 22 And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David. He shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open” (emphasis added).

This steward is going to be replaced by his son Eliakim and upon him is going to be given supreme authority in Israel, underneath the king. And now look at verse 22, “And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David. He shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.” It is very obvious that Jesus is quoting Isaiah here, the book of Revelation is filled with many direct references and allusions to the Old Testament, and this one is very explicit.

The one who has the “keys of David” holds the key to power in the nation of Judah and the city of Jerusalem. Jesus now has these keys, he is the king of Jerusalem, there is no longer any need for a steward because the king has come, and he uses this authority to open and close doors for his people still, that is the Church, Israel, “8 ‘I know your works. Behold, I have set before you an open door, which no one is able to shut. I know that you have but little power, and yet you have kept my word and have not denied my name.” This direct reference from Revelation to Isaiah is enough to support out thesis. But there is more.

Jesus goes on to say, “12 The one who conquers, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God. Never shall he go out of it, and I will write on him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down from my God out of heaven, and my own new name.” Those who conquer sin and continue to persevere in faith and cling to Jesus will have written on them the name of God, the name of the city of God, Jerusalem, and the Lord’s own new name. We will become pillars in the temple of God.

The Israel imagery here is off the charts, especially when we read in Isaiah 22:21, “…and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your sash on him, and will commit your authority to his hand. And he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.” This promise to Eliakim, a steward of Judah, is now fulfilled in the Church. The Church is now being granted the same kind of authority, the same kind of high place, the same kind of position in Israel, that was once bestowed on the stewards of the king of Israel. Our Lord now holds the keys and he uses that power to raise his faithful servants to honoured positions in the kingdom of God, the spiritual Israel, the new Jerusalem.  

And just to be clear who this directed to, “13 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”

The New Testament refers to the Church as Israel in so many ways. So many. So many it is in fact incredible that many people miss it. But if you have been trained to read the Bible with the lens that Israel and the Church are separate entities, then you may miss the significance of verses like this.

This is not to say that God has replaced Israel with the Church, God forbid that he would cast way his people. No, God has done what he has always done; he has replaced dead branches with living branches, he has replaced fruitless branches with fruitful branches, he has replaced unbelievers with believers. This has always been how God has dealt with his people, and it always will be. The key difference is now you do not have to become Jewish to join Israel, you simply have to bow the knee to the Lord Jesus Christ, who has the keys of David and reigns in the New Jerusalem, where we will reign with him (c.f. Rev. 2:25-18).

The Nation Is Sacred

 

"We see from history that the nation-state is the highest form of the idea of security. For Chinese people, the nation-state even equates to the great concept of all-under-heaven [tianxia, classical name for China].

Col. Liang and Col. Xiangsui, Unrestricted Warfare.

As I've argued for many years, nationalism is God's gift to humanity, to protect it from barbarism and imperialism. That is, to protect a people from falling back into warring and competing small tribes, or being subsumed by some version of Babylon; an empire that crushes all national identity.

Of course, the nation-state and the nation are not synonymous. The nation-state exists to serve the nation and can take various different forms over time, from monarchy, to oligarchy, to democracy. But the thrust of the statement above is pointing to that. The nation-state exists to keep the nation secure, to protect it from threats.  

Hence why the nation and nationalism are under such constant attack in our modern world. Our world is currently dominated by an ideology that wants to force all nations to be subsumed to a transnational authority; an empire on a global scale. This is essentially what globalism is and what it is seeking to work towards. A world where all nations have been overcome and all nation-states disbanded, so that a tiny, wicked elite can rule all.

Like all of God's gifts the nation is hated by the god of this age. Also, like all of God's gifts even many of his own people don't respect this gift for what it is: a means of limiting evil. Freedom and security flourish in godly boundaries. Everything God has created for man was designed to flourish in boundaries, whether money, sex, power, speech, nations or more. Without boundaries all of these things go haywire and pile harm on top of harm. The devil wants to break every possible boundary, he's transgressive in his being, and so are all his ideologies in this world. His deceptions even manage to persuade many amongst God's flock that to reject these good boundaries is a good thing to do. It is not.

 

Boomers Could Do More…

 

So, they did this survey with boomers and this is what they found,

“Most boomers won’t give up retirement lifestyle to help children, Australian survey finds

Four in five think their kids have it harder than they did at same age, but seven in 10 unlikely to compromise retired life to help

Baby boomers can see younger Australians are struggling financially and want to help where they can, but they are not willing to do so at the expense of their retirement lifestyle, new research shows.

Four in five Australians over 65 think their children are facing harder times than they experienced at the same age and a corresponding three in four believe passing on their wealth is important, according to new research by the banking and superannuation company AMP.

But despite wanting to help, seven in 10 surveyed said they were unlikely to compromise their retirement lifestyle to do so.”[1]

I think the most significant thing this survey revealed is that most boomers are actually aware that their children are worse off than they were at the same age. The costs bearing down on a millennial family now in their 30’s to 40’s is far and above what it was for the same type of family at that age in the boomer generation.

Boomers had it so much better that there are countless older people out there who have gotten divorced, and both sides of the divorce are still doing well financially compared to many people in the younger generations who haven't. Mistakes like this just punish harder now, than they once did. You can look up these kinds of figures yourself. But this is revealing, not that they don’t want to give up their lifestyle, that we younger generations have always understood, but that they know how much better they have it and are not willing to cost themselves for the sake of their offspring. This is a bit more surprising. There are exceptions of course, there always will be. But these statistics show that the exceptions are the minority, as we also knew.

I don’t think we can change the older generations. I have actually counselled many people in my generation when asked about trying to do so, that this is a foolish, soul crushing, tiresome quest, that just ends in increased heartbreak. So what we should do is look forward. There is no doubt that in virtually ever important metric by the time the boomers have retired, they will have handed a nation to their offspring with a worse economy, a worse, culture, less wealth, less ability to rise through the class ranks of society, and a less cohesive society because of the large immigration that is being relied upon to pay for the welfare and medical debt that their generation benefits from the most. So, it is our responsibility to look forward to work hard to hand our children a better society.

Here are some principles:

1)     How can you use your wealth to benefit your children? Think not about your wealth as your means to enhance your lifestyle. Think of it as your tool to bless your children and their children. Plan accordingly.

2)     Homeschool, or if for some reason you are not able to homeschool, invest in your family relationships to the degree you wish your parents had done for you. I suggest homeschooling because this is a sure-fire way to create a deep bond in a family. I have observed this again and again. But it is not the only way to ensure this, I know families who have used conventional schooling and have still been able to do the same. The deeper principle is prioritize building bonds within your family above all else. This will create a culture in your home where you are all geared to looking after each other. Boomers were conditioned by the media of their generation to pursue self-fulfilment, some broke out of this, most, as seen by the figures, did not. A culture of family dependence will help shield you from the same mistakes.

3)     Don’t expend your energy trying to change your parents if they are always holidaying overseas, or in their caravans, or otherwise. Taking holidays is not wrong of course, but we all know there are those who go above and beyond on this. Don’t expend your energy on this, rather pray about it, give it to God, and then be fully prepared to have to start building again in your generation. A large percentage of the wealth of boomers will end up in the hands of caravan makers, luxury age care resort owners, and cruise ship companies. Consider investing in one of these or a similar industry and direct it towards building wealth for your kids and their kids. If you spend time trying to change your parents you will be disappointed. For Christians, God can do this, I have seen it, I really have. But outside of this use your energy to look forward, not feeling bitter about looking at what could have been.

4)     Be aware of the psyops. Boomers were taken for all they were by the biggest psychological operations in history. They all watched the same shows and listened to the same handful of radio channels. But they are still responsible for believing the lies they were told. We should learn from this and be aware of the lies the current media is telling and teach our children to see through them. If we do we will be preparing them in a way that we were never prepared. We won’t get it perfect either, but we can turn the tide a little from generation to generation.

More could be said, but we younger generations simply have to recognize that the older generations are what they are. The stats show that the experiences of many Gen-x and Millennials are felt society wide. Which should encourage us to recognize that there are many other younger families who will also want to seek to turn this tide. We can help each other in this. That's a bonus. 

List of References

---

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/jun/10/most-boomers-wont-give-up-retirement-lifestyle-to-help-children-australian-survey-finds