Feminists Hate Women

 

It is interesting that saying that women should not serve in frontline combat roles is now considered anti-woman. Saying women should not be sent into machine gun and artillery fire to die is NOW anti-woman! Way to go conservatives (this happened in the LNP), they got rid of this guy for speaking the truth,

“Liberal Party Dumps NSW Candidate Who Believes Women Shouldn’t Serve In Combat For The ADF…

…During an appearance on rightwing figure Joel Jammal‘s podcast The Ark in July 2024, Britton expressed he believed women should “be removed from combat” roles within the Australian Defence Force (ADF).

He was later appointed for preselection into the NSW seat of Whitlam in December 2024, after an unsuccessful attempt with the former United Australia Party in 2022.

“Basically, long story short, if we’re to fix our defence force, unfortunately, they’re going to need to remove females from the combat corps,” said Britton, who served in the 3rd Battalion Royal Australian Regiment.

“Their hips are being destroyed because they can’t cope with the carrying of the heavy loads and the heavy impacts that’s required from doing combat-related jobs.

“I knew some of the toughest men I’ve ever met in my life, absolute nails. War left them a shaking mess. Drug addicted. Can’t go outside the house because they have panic attacks … If war can do that to them and destroy them, why would you want to send your beautiful women?

“Your females — the ones that are the backbone of your society. Your society only exists because of women … Why would you want to sacrifice them in war, on the altar?””[1]

Right on mate, 100% correct. 100% correct.

Feminism was never about lifting women up, it was always designed to turn women into tax paying servants of the state with 40% the upper body strength of men. It was never pro-woman, it was always anti-femininity, anti-family and anti-reason. It was always a propaganda effort to get women out of the home and into the labour force. Feminism did in the West what Communism failed to do here, it made women effectively the common resource of industry.

The powers that be saw how even the lowest man on the totem pole could have a lovely home, with a lovely wife whom he provided for, and who kept his home not just liveable, but desirable. And they thought, "How can we get these women chained to desks, moving on the factory floor, and running into machine gun nests, and paying taxes?" They found a way.

The way was easy, they chose to tell the woman basically the same thing Lucifer did, "Did you know that if you reject the patriarchy, you can be equal?" What they did not tell women is that they meant she can be equally disposable.

I was in the army reserves. I saw how far behind combat units with women fell behind combat units only including men. I saw it firsthand in training. Movies have deceived people beyond belief on this issue. In the movies a 5 foot 5 woman in tights will take down a whole room full of highly trained and built special forces soldiers with a few crazy moves. In real life male soldiers make short work of mixed brigades, and especially the women in them. Short work.

Men it is our job to fight and bleed for our country if necessary, not the job of our women. Our society has become a mixed bag of curses, many women destroy the next generation in the womb, and many men and women get offended when they hear a man say women should not be sent to die for society. God have mercy on us all.

List of References

---

[1] Laura Masia, 2025, https://www.pedestrian.tv/news/liberal-party-dumps-benjamin-britton/

Don’t Believe he Anti-Tariff Hype

 

[1]

Don't believe the media hype about tariffs being bad. The US built its economic wealth on a combination of low immigration and high tariffs. This created a protectionist environment where a highly advanced society with a plethora of resources could builds its own wealth and prosperity while protecting its businesses from foreign competition and interference.

The high immigration and lower tariffs that have been instituted across the  mid 20^th and early 21^st centuries have corresponded to the loss of economic buying power of the average worker's income in America, and we have seen the same thing happen across the West. Their money, and our money, has become worth much less as a result.

As tariffs were removed workers got poorer. Tariffs helped protect local industry and markets. Low tariffs incentivize offshoring of production, which makes the rich much richer and the rest of us worse off.

Also, don't believe the hype that "the markets are down". The markets have been booming for years, there have been record highs. But are you doing better? On average, no, because the markets reflect the wealth of the top 1%, not the rest of us. The wealthy corpocracy have been doing better at our expense. The markets have almost zero relationship to how life is going for average people. The wealthy also own the media so they will try to hit you with lies, that we should oppose this happening here.

This does not mean that there will be not be initial shocks to the global and local economy. For sure there will. Getting off heroine shocks the body. But it is good for you once your body readjusts to not running on poisonous drugs. Free trade and low tariffs have been like a poison running through our society for some time, it is going to cause some pain to get it out of our economic system. Plus, Trump’s tariffs are most likely a starting offer in a negotiation strategy anyway.

The economy needs to change. The current economic climate is not serving Americans, nor Australians:

[2]

The black line is the per capita recession we are currently in. The coloured lines are past recessions. The past recessions were effectively economic booms compared to the current one. Also note that the official figures the government produces show that our economy is growing, but on a per capita basis Australian’s are worse off than ever before. Because the figures they release have nothing to do with how each and every Australian is going, they reflect how the economic growth is serving the wealthy stake holders, rather than the citizen stake holders.

Australia has long been called the 'Lucky Country.' But the thing with luck is that it runs out. It has run out hard. Things need to change, and tariffs are needed to strengthen local production again.

Our government should respond by commending Trump for seeking to rebuild his industrial base, and by also saying, we will do the same and pour every cent, every cent, from our own newly minted tariffs directed at countries that are profiting off us and put them into the local manufacturing industry. Oh, and we should take the money from foreign aid and do the same with that. Those crooks! Of course, I don't think we are blessed with clever leaders, so watch them follow the lead of the EU which is a dying power base.

There are fun times ahead. The world is changing fast.

List of References

---

[1] Michael Read, 2025, https://www.afr.com/policy/economy/trump-tariffs-to-force-rba-to-cut-rates-up-to-four-times-in-2025-20250403-p5lou3

[2] Leith Van Olsen, 2025, https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2025/04/a-long-recession-for-australian-households/

Three Objections to Debt Forgivenes

 

Here are three common objections to the idea of debt forgiveness, and responses to these objections.

Objection One: "I am against forgiving debts, because I should not have to pay for it!"

This is a common response that shows a complete lack of understanding of the issue. You are already paying for people's debts.

The number one cause of inflation is money lending. This money is printed (typed), lent out, and then spent in the economy. This drives up the cost of anything that can be bought, or is usually bought by debt. This includes houses, cars, vacations, phones, etc, etc.

Because debt is so easy to create, this constant stream of money is inflating the cost of everything. So, you are paying, through the nose, already.

The next number one cause of inflation is government stimulus. This is also created more by money printing than by our taxes, because it is often borrowed from foreign banks. This also drives up the cost of everything. The LNP created the worst inflation cycle in decades by pouring 320 billion dollars onto the economy during the cough. Labor doubled down on the crisis with record immigration, which is a close third for the next highest cause of inflation.

The only way to stop you from having to keep paying for people's debts is to lobby for debt cancellation, so that we can restrain the money lenders. This is the only way. People are not going to get more responsible. Just because you can buy a $15,000 Mahindra with low k's as a work Ute or recreational 4wd that is reliable, and about 1/5 the price of a Toyota Landcruiser or Ford Ranger of the same age and k's does not mean most young Aussie guys want to be seen dead in one. Just because you can buy all your clothes second hand does not mean many credit card swiping happy young women want to do so (I know there are exceptions in both these groups).

The only way for us to all stop paying for people's debts, through non-stop inflation and devaluation of our currency, is to cancel debts and in doing so restrain the money lenders. I am sick and tired of paying through the nose for stuff, because most people are happy to run their debt to the max. Are you tired of this? Lobby and vote for politicians who will cancel debts.

Objection Two: "I Am against debt forgiveness because people should be responsible."

This is the objection I understand the most, but it is also the funniest of them all. For one, you think people are going to suddenly become more responsible? Don't make laugh.

The money lenders, usurers, bankers have no incentive to be responsible. The more people borrow, the more they make. Oh, they talk about responsible banking. But to them that simply means you have proven they can squeeze you for what they lent you plus interest compounded over 10, 20, 30 years. If they can get government to institute intergenerational loans, they will, and they are coming, you can be sure of that. Their incentive is to make debt everybody’s problem.

Expecting the average person to be more responsible is a complete rejection of a biblical understanding of humanity. We all like sheep have gone astray, each one his own way. Irresponsibility to varying degrees is baked into humanity. Bankers make light work of fallen, greedy, covetous, envious, slothful, sinners. It's literally like putting lambs among the wolves.

People need to live within boundaries. Bankers need limits on their lending. To know that all the money they have lent will be forgiven at a certain date limits them. It restrains them. Covetous, envious, and greedy people need to be protected from their own nature, by having caged in banks that are afraid to lend too much, so that the people are protected. Usurers are dangerous, money lending though has its place, so we must cage it within tight limits.

This is why many Christian kingdoms, including Byzantium, but also many others, instituted regular debt forgiveness in times past. These Christian societies understood the nature of the usurer and the borrower, and that there was only one way that restrained them both. And wishing for both to be more responsible, like modern conservatives do, was not that option. Debt forgiveness was.

Byzantium began to fall after it stopped forgiving debts. So did many other societies. Why would we let the ancient Sumerians, Akkadians, Spartans and others prove wiser than us on this issue?

Why were landlords and money lenders the bad guys in so many of Charles Dicken's stories? The greatest English novelist, a genuine Christian, obviously knew something we are learning the hard way again, that usurers and landlords are a problem if they get out of control. 

We are irresponsible, having to learn old lessons again and again. Aren't we? 

Objection Three: "I am against debt forgiveness simply on practical terms. It is a nice idea, but I don't see how it is possible, let's talk about realistic policies."

Albanese has promised to wipe 20% of student debt.

Clive Palmer has promised to wipe all student debt and make university free (as long as University is then subjected to an IQ test for entry, this is the right idea).

We have gone from debt forgiveness being something mainstream parties would not even discuss at all, to now being offered it by two prominent public figures and political parties, even though in limited ways.This will grow from here. 

Politicians dealing with societal debt is going to be one of the most important issues in coming years. If only we had some kind well respected book, that suggested how we should do this? Hmmmm.....?

Those who believe change can happen are those who are most likely to make changes happen.

I will continue to address debt forgiveness from time to time here, because this is something our western societies need to take on board, or risk our way of life collapsing under the weight of increasing debt. We need to make sure that we are like the father in the parable of the prodigal son, who received his wayward son back in his arms and not like the older brother who resented the one who had squandered what he had been given being so easily forgiven. 

 

 

Is Christianity Jewish?

 

Is Christianity Jewish?

I can see why some might be tempted to see it this way. Jesus was a Judean, his disciples were Jews. Paul, the greatest Apostle was a Benjamite, a tribe associated with Judah back in ancient times (1 Kings 12:20-24). The main text of the earliest church was the Old Testament, also known by many as the Jewish Scriptures. Ergo, Christianity is Jewish to the core right?

Wrong.

Christianity is not simply the fulfilment of the Old Testament itself, more specifically it is a fulfilment of God's promise to Abraham. Abraham was not a Jew, or an Israelite. He is the father of many nations. One of those nations was the vehicle through which the promise was fulfilled, so that all could be saved, that nation is Israel. The law was a temporary set up, meant to guide humanity to the Messiah,

"15 To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. 16 Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. 17 This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. 18 For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.

19 Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. 20 Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one.

21 Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. 22 But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith." (Gal. 3:15-24).

Why does Paul come back to Abraham so much in his writings? Because he is seeking to demonstrate the multinational character of the Church. He is seeking to prove that Gentiles do not need to become Jewish to be a part of the people of God.

The goal of God’s plan was always to fulfill the promise to the Gentile, Abraham, to save people from all nations. Therefore, the vehicle to bring Christianity into the world was Israel, and the Jews, but the Church is not and was never meant to be Jewish. 

Even the most senior Apostle began to live like a Gentile once this became clear. This is seen in Paul’s rebuke to Peter, “14 But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?” (Gal. 2:14). Before certain men came from James, Peter was happy to eat with Gentiles (Gal. 2:12), but he became a hypocrite when he was put under social pressure. Christianity came through people from the tribe of Judah, but it was never meant to have the character of Jewishness. That’s a complete misunderstanding of the New Testament.

The Church is neither Jewish or Gentile, it is a new race, the third race. This was a nickname that early Christians gave to the Church, because of how the gospel transformed the people of God. To say Christianity is intrinsically Jewish is to miss the message of the New Testament, that Jesus would be a light for all peoples, as we read in Isaiah 49:6,

"he says:

“It is too light a thing that you should be my servant

to raise up the tribes of Jacob

and to bring back the preserved of Israel;

I will make you as a light for the nations,

that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth.”

 We see this fulfilled in the New Testament,

 

“12 Now when he heard that John had been arrested, he withdrew into Galilee. 13 And leaving Nazareth he went and lived in Capernaum by the sea, in the territory of Zebulun and Naphtali, 14 so that what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled:

 

15 “The land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali,

    the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles—

16 the people dwelling in darkness

    have seen a great light,

and for those dwelling in the region and shadow of death,

    on them a light has dawned.”

 

17 From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt. 4:12-17).

To say Christianity is Jewish to its core is to misunderstand the role the Jews played. They were not the end goal, but simply a vehicle through which the Messiah and salvation came. As soon as the Apostles understood this properly, they quickly started to remove the distinctly Jewish characteristics of the law from the obligations of faithfulness for those who followed Jesus. Because Christianity is the fulfilment of the promise to Abraham, a Gentile who was made the father of many nations. An Amorite of the Aramean branch, a man from Ur of the Chaldees. God took a man of the nations to create a way to bless all nations.  

Jesus doesn't make us Jews when we believe, he makes us a new creation, Christians. The Church is its own race. It is intrinsically of Christ, hence we are called Christians.

 

Why Rome Ruled The World

 

Why did the Romans rule the world? Was it their technology? No, they had similar technology to the nations around them, they even copied and learnt most of it from those nations. Was it their political system? No, they were not the only Republic, Carthage was structured in a similar way, and Greece had trialled many forms of limited democracy long before the Romans became famous. Was it their location? No, Rome was situated in the busy and shifting Mediterranean sea and was often assailed from the mountains to their north, and the seas all around them, just as many other societies in that region were.

The difference was their character. The Romans, like the ancient Chinese, had a way of life superior to virtually all those around them. Here is an excerpt from the life of Pyrrhus in Plutarch’s Lives, contrasting one of the greatest Greek Generals of his day to the character of the Romans. It should be noted that Pyrrhus was a second cousin of Alexander the Great. But look at the superior character of the Romans,

“After this, an embassy came from the Romans to treat about the prisoners that had been taken. The embassy was headed by Caius Fabricius, who, as Cineas reported, was held in highest esteem at Rome as an honourable man and good soldier, but was inordinately poor. To this man, then, Pyrrhus privately showed kindness and tried to induce him to accept gold, not for any base purpose, indeed, but calling it a mark of friendship and hospitality. But Fabricius rejected the gold, and for that day Pyrrhus let him alone; on the following day, however, wishing to frighten a man who had not yet seen an elephant, he ordered the largest of these animals to be stationed behind a hanging in front of which they stood conversing together. This was done; and at a given signal the hanging was drawn aside, and the animal raised his trunk, held it over the head of Fabricius, and emitted a harsh and frightful cry. But Fabricius calmly turned and said with a smile to Pyrrhus: "Your gold made no impression on me yesterday, neither does your beast today."

Again, at supper, where all sorts of topics were discussed, and particularly that of Greece and her philosophers, Cineas happened somehow to mention Epicurus, and set forth the doctrines of that school concerning the gods, civil government, and the highest good, explaining that they made pleasure the highest good, but would have nothing to do with civil government on the ground that it was injurious and the ruin of felicity, and that they removed the Deity as far as possible from feelings of kindness or anger or concern for us, into a life that knew no care and was filled with ease and comfort. But before Cineas was done, Fabricius cried out and said, "0 Hercules, may Pyrrhus and the Samnites cherish these doctrines, as long as they are at war with us."

Thus Pyrrhus was led to admire the high spirit and character of the man, and was all the more eager to have friendship with this city instead of waging war against it; he even privately invited him, in case he brought about the settlement, to follow his fortunes and share his life as the first and foremost of all his companions and generals. But Fabricius, as we are told, said quietly to him: "Nay, O King, this would not be to thy advantage; for the very men who now admire and honour thee, if they should become acquainted with me, would prefer to have me as their king rather than thee." Such a man was Fabricius.

And Pyrrhus did not receive the speech with anger or like a tyrant, but actually reported to his friends the magnanimity of Fabricius, and entrusted his prisoners of war to him alone, on condition that, in case the senate should not vote for the peace, they should be sent back again to him, though they might first greet their relatives and celebrate the festival of Saturn. And they were so sent back after the festival, the senate having voted a penalty ofdeath for any that stayed behind.

After this, and when Fabricius had assumed the consulship, a man came into his camp with a letter for him. The letter had been written by the physician of Pyrrhus, who promised that he would take the king off by poison, provided that the Romans would agree to reward him for putting an end to the war without further hazard on their part. But Fabricius, who was indignant at the iniquity of the man, and had disposed his colleague to feel likewise, sent a letter to Pyrrhus with all speed urging him to be on his guard against the plot. The letter ran as follows:

‘Caius Fabricius and Quintus Aemilius, consuls of Rome, to King Pyrrhus, health and happiness. It would appear that thou art a good judge neither of friends nor of enemies. Thou wilt see, when thou hast read the letter which we send, that the men with whom thou art at war are honourable and just, but that those whom thou trustest are unjust and base. And indeed we do not give thee this information out of regard for thee, but in order that thy ruin may not bring infamy upon us, and that men may not say of us that we brought the war to an end by treachery because we were unable to do so by valour.’

When Pyrrhus had read this letter and got proof of the plot against his life, he punished the physician, and as a requital to Fabricius and the Romans made them a present of his prisoners of war, and once more sent Cineas to negotiate a peace for him. But the Romans would not consent to receive the men for nothing, either as a favour from an enemy, or as a reward for not committing iniquity against him, and therefore released for Pyrrhus an equal number of Tarentines and Samnites whom they had taken; on the subject of friendship and peace, however, they declared they would allow nothing to be said until Pyrrhus had taken his arms and his army out of Italy and sailed back to Epeirus on the ships that brought him.”[1]

What is notable about this situation is that Caius Fabricius was typical of Roman men in this period, not exceptional. Rome produced leader after leader just like this man for centuries, down to the lowest foot soldiers this sort of character was expected. These were men who could not be bought, who did not hanker after luxury, and who saw no honour in taking the easy way. They were much like the Spartans at their peak, except their society was structured far more successfully. Far more Roman men were able to make up the legions of the Romans rather than Phalanx of the Spartans, which enabled them to take more land and hold it.

It is not that Rome always won, either. Their armies were often bested in the field. Pyrrhus defeated several Roman armies. But such was the character of the Romans that the more they were beaten, the more men there were willing to step into their place and face the same enemy again and again. Because of this Pyrrhus was forced to withdraw even though he continually beat the Romans. From this comes the term 'pyrrhic victory'. Hannibal the Carthaginian would learn this the hard way as well, and many, many others. This never say die spirit, that allowed Rome to even come back from some of the kinds of defeats that would have caused many other great societies to fold, stemmed from a unique character, which helped them stand out amongst the decadent nations surrounding them. Oh, they would become decadent too, eventually, but before they were pulled down by the weight of their own success, they achieved more than any other nation in Europe, until perhaps the British Empire. Such was the character which drove them.

List of References

---

[1] Plutarch’s Lives, Volume 2, pp. 540-541, Castalia Library Edition.