Book Sale

Saturday, 29 March 2025

Foreign Aid Is Immoral


If David decided to take 0.5% of the first fruits of Israel's crops and herds, turned this into money, and then gave this to Syria, Sidon or Tyre, what would the prophets have said about him? 

He has taken that which is not his, and given at no cost to himself, to people not of his kingdom. There is nothing righteous in this act. 

David himself would have condemned it: 

"24 But the king said to Araunah, “No, but I will buy it from you for a price. I will not offer burnt offerings to the Lord my God that cost me nothing.” So David bought the threshing floor and the oxen for fifty shekels of silver" (2 Samuel 24:24). 

To give that which is not his, at no cost to himself was the opposite of righteousness or charity. David was horrified at the suggestion of it. 

This is what foreign aid is. It is intrinsically immoral. You cannot even make a case for the benefit to society from it, because once it leaves these shores, almost all accountability disappears. But to take what is not yours to give at no cost to yourself is not charity. Not even close.

Friday, 28 March 2025

The New Perspective on Paul and Christian Zionism

 



A friend of mine, who is also a fellow Baptist pastor, sent me this video and asked me what my thoughts were on the New Perspective on Paul. So, I decided to make this today's blog. Here are my thoughts on that interview and on the new perspective in general.

I think the best way I can answer this question is by looking at a case study. So, we are going to look at the book of Galatians.

What is Galatians about? If you ask the average evangelical what the crux of the book of Galatians is, if they are reasonably well read in the Bible, they will say that in Galatians Paul is arguing that we are saved by faith, not by works. They may even point to this key passage in Galatians 2, “16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified” (Galatians 2:16-17). This is the core passage that many would point to when highlighting the message of the book of Galatians.  

The preaching on this theme will also be very simple. Nothing you do of your own effort can save you, because no amount of effort or works can save you. You can only be saved, or declared righteous, in God’s sight by faith. This message accounts for how the so-called Old Perspective would handle this book. And this point is 100% true. None of our works can save us, we can only be saved by trusting in Jesus Christ. The problem is not with this message, the issue is that this is not what the book of Galatians is about. This teaching is simply one of the threads in the book through which Paul is making a different argument.  

Paul’s core argument is focused on who are the people of God. Or who are the real children of Abraham and the beneficiaries of the promises made by God to Abraham? He is specifically addressing this point: are people made part of God’s covenant people through faith, or through becoming Jews,

“1 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. 2 Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? 4 Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? 5 Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith— 6 just as Abraham “believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”?

7 Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. 8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” 9 So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith” (Gal. 3:1-9).

Paul is not so much responding to those preaching faith + works, though his message does apply to that issue. He is responding to those saying faith + becoming a Jew is necessary to being a child of Abraham. So, when he refers to “works of the law” in Galatians he specifically means either the works of the Old Covenant like circumcision and all that goes with that. Or he means this plus the traditions of the elders, which the Pharisees believed were as authoritative as the Torah. Either way, he is rejecting the idea that you must submit to the law and become Jewish to be truly part of the people of God,

“11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. 13 And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. 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. 2:11-14).

Paul challenged Peter because he defaulted to the first century Jewish behaviour of separating himself from the Gentiles, especially while eating. Even though he should have known better than this. Peter knew better because God had poured the Holy Spirit out on Gentiles that Jewish and Gentiles believers were all made full citizens of the same people of God,

“11 And behold, at that very moment three men arrived at the house in which we were, sent to me from Caesarea. 12 And the Spirit told me to go with them, making no distinction. These six brothers also accompanied me, and we entered the man's house. 13 And he told us how he had seen the angel stand in his house and say, ‘Send to Joppa and bring Simon who is called Peter; 14 he will declare to you a message by which you will be saved, you and all your household.’ 15 As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning. 16 And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 17 If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God's way?” 18 When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, “Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life” (Acts 11:11-18)

Peter was acting against what he knew the implications of the gospel to be, so Paul had to rebuke him and remind him what they were. 

In Galatians, Paul is actually arguing against the false idea that there are two people’s of God, and only those who submit themselves unto the law can become part of the elite crowd, the Jewish believing crowd. Paul says that the truth is actually the opposite, if you seek to be more righteous by submitting to the law, and making others submit to the law, you are cut off from Christ,

“1 For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. 2 Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. 3 I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. 4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. 5 For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love” (Gal. 5:1-6).

Paul obviously does not mean that circumcised people cannot be saved, because he is circumcised himself. He tells us this in Philippians 3, even though it might be a little bit of over sharing. What he means here is that if you think there are two peoples of God, Israel and Gentiles, and you think that to be truly righteous in God’s sight that you must become like the Jews and submit to their law, then you have severed yourself from Christ. Because righteousness does not come through the law, it can only come through faith in Jesus.

The Jews are not closer to God than Gentiles, because Abraham, who was a Gentile originally, was justified by his faith, not his circumcision or the law, “just as Abraham “believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”?” (Gal. 3:6).

So, Paul’s overarching argument is not that we are saved by faith not works, that is one of his subpoints. His overarching argument is that there is one people of God, and the marker of who these people are is faith in Christ,

“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. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave[p] nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise” (Gal. 3:23-29).

This is the crux of his argument, that all who have faith in Christ are the real descendants of Abraham. Your flesh counts for nothing in this equation. Only faith does.

This is where the New Perspective helps us, because it emphasizes the Jewish nature of the works of the law. Something which is key for understanding Paul’s argument in Galatians.

Many who hold to the so-called Old Perspective have so over-emphasized the message that Galatians is about how we are saved by faith not works, that many Christians have forgotten what the book is actually about. Calvin and Luther did not make that mistake, you will see this if you read them. But some who have come after them have, particularly in the highly individualized modern west.

This is why so many bad exegetes and preachers argue that Galatians 3:28 means women can be pastors. This is a complete butchering of Paul’s point, but it is a common mistake. Paul is not speaking about equality in Galatians, he is speaking about access to the covenant family, he is seeking to correct the Galatians on the issue of who the real people of God are. His argument is that the flesh counts for nothing, only faith in Jesus does. This is a core theme in all of Paul’s writings, and in his preaching in Acts as well.

The Christians who assert that there are two distinct and co-terminus peoples of God, the Church and Israel, would in large numbers hold to the teaching that salvation is about faith not works. But they have so been drilled by the message that this is what Galatians is about, that they have missed that this book actually rebukes the idea of two people’s of God explicitly. That is core thrust of Paul’s argument. They even miss what Paul says at the end of the letter while sowing up his point,

“14 But far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. 15 For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. 16 And as for all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God” (Gal. 6:14-16).

The phrase “upon them, and upon the Israel of God” is used by some to distinguish the church from Israel. But the Greek word for “and” is “kai” and can be translated “even”, and is often used in the sense of emphasis. So, Paul is actually saying, “peace and mercy be upon them, even upon the Israel of God.” He is seeking to emphasize that God offers peace to his people, as Psalm 29:11 says, “11 May the Lord give strength to his people! May the Lord bless his people with peace!” And who are the people of God? As he has argued, only those who have faith in Jesus.

In fact, in the verse previous to the mention of the “Israel of God” Paul has said circumcision counts for nothing, nor does uncircumcision, only being made new in Christ does. This fits with his message all the way through Galatians that there is one people of God and it is only the people of faith. If he now distinguishes between two peoples of God, he contradicts himself. Thankfully, the Greek does not have to be read this way.

Paul’s whole message in Galatians is focused on rebuking those who think they are better because they are Jewish and submit to the law, in other words, the Pharisees and others like them. This is an important message and can apply to any self-righteous people in the church today who think their works make them better than anyone else. But the initial application in Galatians is about there being one people of God, declared righteous in God’s sight and it is not the doers of the Torah but the believers in Jesus.

The early Church knew this. Luther and Calvin knew this. But an overemphasis on Galatians being about individualistic faith and salvation has caused people to forget this in large measure. Galatians is about who are the real community of God’s people, and the answer is only those who believe. This has both individual and social implications, the social ones being that physical Israel is no more the real people of God, than Greece, Rome or Moldova. Whereas anyone who comes from any of these places and more can be made part of Israel through faith in Jesus. The New Perspective on Paul helps us remember these communal applications, and to hone in on who are the real people of God. This is something the early church spent much of its time debating about, hence this is why scholars can see some connections between the New Perspective on Paul and the Early Church Fathers.

Thursday, 27 March 2025

Fallen Means And God: Women Pastors

 




You might have noticed if you have been reading me for some time now that I often speak to the evils of feminism. Whether you follow me on my blog or on my Substack you will have seen I am not shy about calling out how feminism has caused rot to set into the home, the church and wider society. It is a pernicious evil. Feminists don’t even really have a true definition of what a woman is, and this is starting to have an impact on conservatives, who are often just pushing the views of yesterday’s liberals.

My four part (so far) series on Satanic Feminism also might come across to some as just the kind of thing that a conservative Baptist pastor might say about feminism. And to be fair you would in large part be right. But the title was actually inspired by a book published by the Oxford Academic Press by Per Faxneld called, “Satanic Feminism: Lucifer as the Liberator of Woman in Nineteenth-Century Culture.”[1] This book was based on Faxneld’s award winning PhD thesis, which shows that the modern world, and particularly Socialism and Feminism have deep connections to explicitly Luciferian ideas and inspirations. The abstract on Oxford’s website says,

“Abstract

According to the Bible, Eve was the first to heed Satan’s advice to eat of the forbidden fruit. The notion of woman as the Devil’s accomplice is prominent throughout the history of Christianity and has been used to legitimate the subordination of wives and daughters. During the nineteenth century, rebellious females performed counter-readings of this misogynist tradition. Hereby, Lucifer was reconceptualized as a feminist liberator of womankind, and Eve became a heroine. In these reimaginings, Satan is an ally in the struggle against a patriarchy supported by God the Father and his male priests. The book delineates how such Satanic feminism is expressed in a number of nineteenth-century esoteric works, literary texts, autobiographies, pamphlets and journals, newspaper articles, paintings, sculptures, and even artefacts of consumer culture such as jewellery. The analysis focuses on interfaces between esotericism, literature, art, and the political realm. New light is thus shed on neglected aspects of the intellectual history of feminism, Satanism, and revisionary mythmaking. The scope of the study makes it valuable not only for historians of religion but also for those with a general interest in cultural history (or specific aspects of it like gender history, romanticism, or decadent-symbolist art and literature).”[2]

It looks like the rhetoric of those conservative Baptist preachers was more correct than you could have ever imagined. And this should not surprise us, feminism calls into question everything the Bible says about men, women and their relationship to each other. The catch cry of evangelical feminists is “did God really say?”, which is precisely the most deceptive question in the Bible, especially when it is followed by the disregarding of the biblical text.

Feminists were not shy in noting their inspiration came form the very kind of subversive Luciferians that Faxneld identifies. As they write in their own auto-biographical history, The Complete History of the Suffragette Movement:

“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.”[3]

So, they directly linked themselves to the worship of the god of nature, otherwise known as Baal, Pan or the devil, among many other names. They even show their complete disregard for the Bible,

“While woman's subordination is taught as a Scriptural doctrine, the most devout and learned biblical scholars of the present day admit that the Bible has suffered many interpolations in the course of the centuries. Some of these have doubtless occurred through efforts to render certain passages clearer, while others have been forged with direct intention to deceive. Disraeli says that the early English editions contain 6,000 errors, which were constantly introduced, and passages interpolated for sectarian purposes, or to sustain new creeds. Sometimes, indeed, they were added for the purpose of destroying all Scriptural authority by the suppression of texts. The Church Union says of the present translation, that there are more than 7,000 variations from the received Hebrew text, and more than 150,000 from the received Greek text…

…Amid this vast discrepancy in regard to the truth of the Scriptures themselves; with no Hebrew manuscript older than the twelfth century; with no Greek one older than the fourth; with the acknowledgment by scholars of 7,000 errors in the Old Testament, and 150,000 in the New; with assurance that these interpolations and changes have been made by men in the interest of creeds, we may well believe that the portions of the Bible quoted against woman's equality are but interpolations of an unscrupulous priesthood, for the purpose of holding her in subjection to man.”[4]

So, don’t take my word for it that feminism is Satanic. Don’t even take the academic Per Faxneld’s well research and sourced word for it. Listen to the Suffragette’s themselves. They saw themselves as the ideological fulfillment in their day of the witches of the medieval and early modern era, and they had exactly as much respect for the word of God as the devil. They even confirm an argument you have seen me make, as have others, that the Bible does not teach equality between the genders, “we may well believe that the portions of the Bible quoted against woman's equality are but interpolations of an unscrupulous priesthood, for the purpose of holding her in subjection to man.” Did you see that? They recognize the import of what these passages say about the differences between the roles of men and women, and so they seek to simply remove them from the equation, because they don’t like what the Bible says. This is literally Satanic. If we had no other evidence for their source of inspiration, this would be enough to confirm the case for most reasonable Christians.

But people are more emotional thinkers than dialectic thinkers. This is simply because we default to how things make us feel, rather than making a rigorous examination of most issues. This is especially true with women pastors. Many modern Christians just think it is mean to say women cannot be pastors, and on top of that, many of the same Christians will note that they have been blessed by a female pastor at some point. How can this be evil, if they have been blessed by it? This is a reasonable question. A very good question in fact, and I think there are some really good ways to answer it. But I want just want to focus on one in this piece.

Solomon. Specifically Solomon and high places.

This insight comes from one of the most famous passages in the Bible. As with all famous passages we need to read it carefully, because it is easy to miss things in passages we think we know very well. Look at this,

“1 Solomon made a marriage alliance with Pharaoh king of Egypt. He took Pharaoh's daughter and brought her into the city of David until he had finished building his own house and the house of the Lord and the wall around Jerusalem. 2 The people were sacrificing at the high places, however, because no house had yet been built for the name of the Lord.

3 Solomon loved the Lord, walking in the statutes of David his father, only he sacrificed and made offerings at the high places. 4 And the king went to Gibeon to sacrifice there, for that was the great high place. Solomon used to offer a thousand burnt offerings on that altar. 5 At Gibeon the Lord appeared to Solomon in a dream by night, and God said, “Ask what I shall give you” (1 Kings 3:1-5).

Verse 3 is key here, “Solomon loved the Lord, walking in the statutes of his father, only he sacrificed and made offerings at the high places.” This was a problem, a serious problem. These high places were a never-ending snare to the people of Israel, even to a king like Solomon.

The high places were places of idolatry. They were meant to be destroyed, Numbers 33:52, “then you shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you and destroy all their figured stones and destroy all their metal images and demolish all their high places.” God even predicted that they would cause the fall of Israel, Leviticus 26:30, “And I will destroy your high places and cut down your incense altars and cast your dead bodies upon the dead bodies of your idols, and my soul will abhor you…” In this passage God is looking forwards in time to the coming judgement of Israel for their abandonment of their covenant with God. The high places would be a key part of the problem.

This process is explained in the books of 1 and 2 Kings. When Jeroboam took control of Israel he intensified this idolatry,

“28 So the king took counsel and made two calves of gold. And he said to the people, “You have gone up to Jerusalem long enough. Behold your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt.” 29 And he set one in Bethel, and the other he put in Dan. 30 Then this thing became a sin, for the people went as far as Dan to be before one. 31 He also made temples on high places and appointed priests from among all the people, who were not of the Levites” (1 Kings 12).

Again and again in the Old Testament you will hear reference to what a snare these high places were to the people of Israel. The bad kings promoted these places, but even many good kings allowed this snare to flourish, “He walked in all the way of Asa his father. He did not turn aside from it, doing what was right in the sight of the Lord. Yet the high places were not taken away, and the people still sacrificed and made offerings on the high places” (1 Kings 22:43). Even many kings who sought to bring faithfulness back to Israel did not remove the high places.

The Bible does not mince words about the sin that these high places represented, “For they provoked him to anger with their high places; they moved him to jealousy with their idols;…” (Ps. 78:58). These high places were clearly snares. Their very existence was a blight on the worship practices of the people of God. Yet Solomon encountered God at one of these high places,

“3 Solomon loved the Lord, walking in the statutes of David his father, only he sacrificed and made offerings at the high places. 4 And the king went to Gibeon to sacrifice there, for that was the great high place. Solomon used to offer a thousand burnt offerings on that altar. 5 At Gibeon the Lord appeared to Solomon in a dream by night, and God said, “Ask what I shall give you” (1 Kings 3:3-5).

Solomon loved God but tolerated the high places. In fact, he “used to offer a thousand burnt offerings on that altar…” at Gibeon.

How could God speak to Solomon when Solomon was doing something he should not be doing? Because such is the grace of God. I cannot help but see a good comparison here to the practice of female pastors in the church today.

Today, many women are pastors. This is forbidden in the Bible, but a lot of the church just tolerates this, no, they actually endorse it, promote it and look down on churches that do not do it. Just like the high places of biblical law this are forbidden by both the Old and New Testament, however, it is tolerated. Even good kings tolerated the high places, remember. Even men in the church we would consider good have been known to make the case for female preachers. Men who are otherwise orthodox in all other aspects of their practice and theology.

These high places show us two things about this situation. One, yes God can work through forbidden means. To be hung on a tree was a curse in the Jewish law (Deut. 21:22-23), yet God saved the world through a man who was hung on a tree, or on the wood from one at least. Paul says he became a curse for us (Gal. 3:13). God can work through forbidden means, he can even work through the hands of sinners to bring great deliverance. This is true for female pastors. People can be blessed by insights that some of these women share from the word of God, because God’s word is powerful in and of itself. God’s word spoken by anyone can bring blessing, even if they did not originally intend it, such is the grace of God.

But just because God can work through these fallen means does not mean we should encourage it. Solomon met God at a high place, a high place he frequented, even though he should not have. But we should not see God working through the high place as vindicating that practice, or blessing its continued use. Because this practice brought down the whole nation of Israel. This was a snare that was both predicted to bring down the people of God, and which we saw actually happened.

We have seen the many ways the Bible forbids women being pastors in previous articles. But we have also seen how many women are turning back from the role, because of the effects it has on their lives. Women should not take on this role, and many are finding out the hard way parts of the reasons why God gave this command in the Bible. The wider effect this is having on the church is also observed to be negative, the modern western church has been massively feminised. But it goes beyond just the local church, the wider effect it also has on society is a problem.

A society where women take on more and more of the roles of men, is a society that will end up having to replace itself with immigration, simply because it stops having enough children to replace itself. We are seeing this negative effect in our country and all across the West today. Rather than confront this issue and tear down this “high place”, many leaders in the church and society fail to confront it, and our whole society and church lumbers towards disaster.

Just because something is used in scripture to bring about good, does not mean we should follow that practice. Just because you may have been blessed by the ministry of a woman from time to time, does not mean we should encourage such a practice. Solomon’s example is a perfect comparison to help us understand why doing so is a disaster. He may have been blessed at a high place, but the high places ending up destroying his kingdom. The longitudinal effects of disobeying God’s word matter more than momentary blessings.

 

List of References



[2] Ibid.

[3] Stanton, Elizabeth Cady (et. al.) 2017, The Complete History of the Suffragette Movement - All 6 Books in One Edition) The Battle for the Equal Rights: 1848-1922, Musaicum Books. Kindle Edition. Chapter 15.

[4] Ibid. 

Tuesday, 25 March 2025

Multicultural Societies Lead To Oppression

 




A few days ago I shared this somewhere online,

“Multiethnic countries are not nations. They are Empires, they may be ruled by a nation-state, but they are empires. Nor are they small ones. Australia has a larger population than many historical empires. An empire is one state ruling over many nations or peoples (these words being synonymous).

Empires always require force to maintain order between the various people groups in their borders. Because those people groups will have grievances with each other. Wars between those peoples home countries, for instance, will be reflected in some ways in the foreign countries these people live. We see this in our own country, various minorities seeking to use the law to ban the opinions of those they oppose.

Hence, not only is free speech not possible in a Multiethnic society. It's simply one source of many sources that will cause internal conflicts.

Freedom is always suppressed in multicultural societies. Because without a strong hand order is fragile. The choice to become a multicultural society was a choice to destroy our way of life one new bit of legislation at a time.

And politicians are now starting to admit this.”

Someone noted that they could see why this is often the case, but what is my evidence that “freedom is always suppressed in multicultural societies”? That is a good question. So, I have decided to answer it in this blog, and send it to them, but put it out there for others to read as well.

Ok, this is going to be a relatively detailed answer with recommended extra reading. There are multiple levels of evidence that shows that for multicultural nations to exist freedom is necessarily sacrificed.

The first stream of evidence is logical. When you have widely divergent belief systems, it is not possible to have people live together without suppressing one or another of those belief systems. What happens if you have people from one faith that believe in sacrificing bulls publicly, but another who believe that is blasphemy? You will have conflict, these peoples will come into conflict with each other, and you will therefore need to suppress one or both of these faiths to some degree so that these peoples can live in relative harmony in the same city. This is simply a logical deduction.

Some people from both of these faiths will be nominal and not care. But in a large enough group you will find others who hold these beliefs genuinely. Now, for multicultural societies multiply this by orders of magnitude. You have heaps of conflicting ideas and beliefs. The authorities, the state, has the responsibility to maintain order, not propagate faith. They also have the authority to use the sword. Hence this will lead to some form of oppression, even if only moderate, because most peoples consider it oppression when they are not able to practice their beliefs freely. But some beliefs of some faiths simply do not work in a civil society.

The state will always see this as justified as well, order comes before perceived or even actual rights. As the NSW Premier said,

“The Premier admitted that his approach would encroach on personal freedoms but seemed undeterred. “I don’t do that lightly. It is impinging on people’s rights, but we cannot have a situation where, with impunity, someone can walk down the street sowing division amongst different communities and then gleefully go home whilst the rest of us are left with the implications,” he said.”[1]

The state sees this as justified, but some or many peoples will chafe under this. This is by definition oppression, even if you agree it is justified, as many do. In fact, historically, many peoples have considered it to be oppression simply to be ruled by another culture. This is because not all cultures have the same ideas, assumptions and practices. However, to maintain order in a multicultural society necessarily requires the government taking a strong hand. So, the first stream is logical.

The second is observational. Empires are always policed by military officers, rather than by simple civilian officials. Someone may turn around and note that ah, ha, Matt, you are wrong on this point, we have a civilian police for in Australia. But have you noticed that our police are now more militarized than ever? They patrol the streets in combat style gear, rather than the civilian style office gear they used to wear. Just watch an episode of blue heelers and compare how police used to dress compared to now. This is because policing is a much more dangerous and harder job in a multicultural society. It requires different operational training and tactics.

Others have noted this militarization as a concern, even if they are not aware of the ultimate source of the issue,

“Australian police are increasingly being "militarised".

Front-line officers in Queensland and Victoria, and specialist units across the country, are being trained in military-style tactics and thinking.

Lawyer and former Australian Defence Force officer John Sutton describes this "convergence" as slow and worrying.

"Typically, a close ideological and operational alliance between the police force and the military has always been associated with repressive regimes," he says.

"Australia has a very strong democracy and a very robust civic mindedness among its population.

"Nevertheless, these developments are certainly concerning."[2]

However, this article does point towards the source of the issue, “But he also believes the militarisation of police right across the English-speaking world reflects a pervasive "moral panic" over rising crime levels and increased terrorism.”[3] Not all terrorism is a result of multiculturalism, that must be stated. But some of it is, as some terrorists are recent immigrants or even refugees who have a grievance against one culture or another. Yes, it is only a tiny minority, but the threat still needs to be addressed. This is without question an issue, and it is natural for governments to seek to better equip their police to deal with more serious growing issues. More natural, but not conducive to preserving our way of life. Militarized police by definition are trained to use more force and are often given a much broader range of powers.

So, observation of how empires are policed in history, with a strong visible military presence on the streets, is confirmed by what we see in Australia itself. As our society has become more multicultural, so too have our police become more militarized. And this has experts worried. Of course, noting that this is in part a result of multicultural societies is less popular to discuss, but it has always been a reality in such societies.

Third, some of the West’s best thinkers predicted this is exactly what would happen in a multicultural or multifaith society. For instance, here is an extended quote from John Locke on the subject of the limits of toleration,

“But to come to particulars. I say, first, no opinions contrary to human society, or to those moral rules which are necessary to the preservation of civil society, are to be tolerated by the magistrate. But of these, indeed, examples in any Church are rare. For no sect can easily arrive to such a degree of madness as that it should think fit to teach, for doctrines of religion, such things as manifestly undermine the foundations of society and are, therefore, condemned by the judgement of all mankind; because their own interest, peace, reputation, everything would be thereby endangered.

Another more secret evil, but more dangerous to the commonwealth, is when men arrogate to themselves, and to those of their own sect, some peculiar prerogative covered over with a specious show of deceitful words, but in effect opposite to the civil right of the community. For example: we cannot find any sect that teaches, expressly and openly, that men are not obliged to keep their promise; that princes may be dethroned by those that differ from them in religion; or that the dominion of all things belongs only to themselves. For these things, proposed thus nakedly and plainly, would soon draw on them the eye and hand of the magistrate and awaken all the care of the commonwealth to a watchfulness against the spreading of so dangerous an evil. But, nevertheless, we find those that say the same things in other words. What else do they mean who teach that faith is not to be kept with heretics? Their meaning, forsooth, is that the privilege of breaking faith belongs unto themselves; for they declare all that are not of their communion to be heretics, or at least may declare them so whensoever they think fit. What can be the meaning of their asserting that kings excommunicated forfeit their crowns and kingdoms? It is evident that they thereby arrogate unto themselves the power of deposing kings, because they challenge the power of excommunication, as the peculiar right of their hierarchy. That dominion is founded in grace is also an assertion by which those that maintain it do plainly lay claim to the possession of all things. For they are not so wanting to themselves as not to believe, or at least as not to profess themselves to be the truly pious and faithful. These, therefore, and the like, who attribute unto the faithful, religious, and orthodox, that is, in plain terms, unto themselves, any peculiar privilege or power above other mortals, in civil concernments; or who upon pretence of religion do challenge any manner of authority over such as are not associated with them in their ecclesiastical communion, I say these have no right to be tolerated by the magistrate; as neither those that will not own and teach the duty of tolerating all men in matters of mere religion. For what do all these and the like doctrines signify, but that they may and are ready upon any occasion to seize the Government and possess themselves of the estates and fortunes of their fellow subjects; and that they only ask leave to be tolerated by the magistrate so long until they find themselves strong enough to effect it?

Again: That Church can have no right to be tolerated by the magistrate which is constituted upon such a bottom that all those who enter into it do thereby ipso facto deliver themselves up to the protection and service of another prince. For by this means the magistrate would give way to the settling of a foreign jurisdiction in his own country and suffer his own people to be listed, as it were, for soldiers against his own Government. Nor does the frivolous and fallacious distinction between the Court and the Church afford any remedy to this inconvenience; especially when both the one and the other are equally subject to the absolute authority of the same person, who has not only power to persuade the members of his Church to whatsoever he lists, either as purely religious, or in order thereunto, but can also enjoin it them on pain of eternal fire. It is ridiculous for any one to profess himself to be a Mahometan only in his religion, but in everything else a faithful subject to a Christian magistrate, whilst at the same time he acknowledges himself bound to yield blind obedience to the Mufti of Constantinople, who himself is entirely obedient to the Ottoman Emperor and frames the feigned oracles of that religion according to his pleasure. But this Mahometan living amongst Christians would yet more apparently renounce their government if he acknowledged the same person to be head of his Church who is the supreme magistrate in the state.”[4]

Locked predicted that a strong hand of the state would be required if England became multicultural, because this would allow ideas that were considered not conducive to civilisation a chance to flourish. He wrote this in the 17th century, which shows quite considerable foresight, because Britian is not in this exact situation. Read his whole letter on the issue, it really shows how limited toleration should be for it to actually work. 

Locke is here making the case for classical liberalism, and he is predicting that the magistrate, or police and judges, would have to use increased power to maintain order, if certain types of faiths were to live in the same nation. In other words, toleration always had to have limits to work. Otherwise, it would just create a series of nonsense contradictions and society would increasingly fracture. Toleration was always meant to be limited, it was never meant to be absolute.

It should be noted here, that when Locke refers to "Mahometan" religion in this letter, he is actually talking about Catholicism, though it was illegal for him to be so open about this while he was writing his case, so he had to speak of it cryptically. Locke saw how important it was for Protestants and Catholics to have their own spheres of influence and authority, because he saw how they would clash, and he saw how loyalty to a foreign sovereign, in this case the Pope, could cause issues in a Protestant nation, where the highest earthly authority was meant to be the king. In this way he predicted many issues that would arise across Europe. Although, it must be said, that he had already witnessed this in his own country, and in wider Europe in this day.

Fourthly, for the scientific minded, there is the 2007 study by Robert D Putnam, Diversity and Community in the Twenty-First Century.[5] I encourage you to read the whole paper. Essentially what Putnam found is that as diversity increases social cohesion decreases, and as social cohesion decreases society fractures, and brings with it all the flow on negative effects of that loss of social cohesion, including crime. This increased crime requires an increased police presence, which goes on to decrease social cohesion even more. He argued that there were ways to increase social cohesion, but these only have limited contextual applications. Putnam proved what we have argued for logically, from observation, and historical predictions with social scientific data.

Multicultural societies require a stronger hand of the government, because there are more sources of disturbances.

List of References



[3] Ibid.

[4] John Locke, 7 Works, Letter Concerning Toleration, Kindle Edition.

[5] Putnam, Robert D, 2007. Diversity and  Community in the Twenty-first Century, The 2006 Johan Skytte Price Lecture, Nordic Political Science Association.

Monday, 24 March 2025

You Are Being Robbed

 


Source: Macrobusiness


You are being robbed and you are being lied to about it. It is often claimed that Australia’s high level of immigration is necessary to fill skills shortages in the nation. But the data shows that with record immigration Australia is oversupplied with low-skilled workers and no progress has been made on fixing skill shortages,

“According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 1,044,160 net permanent and long-term arrivals have landed in Australia since the Albanese government took office in June 2022.

New data from Jobs & Skills Australia, collated by Justin Fabo of Antipodean Macro, demonstrates that the record net overseas migration has done nothing to alleviate high-skilled labour shortages, while oversupplying the economy with low-skilled workers:

As you can see, employers have little difficulty filling low-skilled jobs but continue to struggle to fill high-skilled positions…

…Despite two-and-a-half years of extraordinary net overseas migration, shortages of highly skilled workers have barely improved since the international border reopened in late 2021.

The vast bulk of recent migrants have been low-skilled. This is mostly due to the rise in international students, international graduates, and working holidaymakers. It also reflects the reality that the majority of ‘skilled’ migrants work in lower-skilled jobs…

…Deloitte Access Economics uncovered that 44% of permanent migrants in Australia were working in jobs below their skill level in 2023. The majority of these underemployed migrants entered through the skilled stream.

Deloitte projected that over 620,000 permanent migrants work below their skill levels and credentials. Of these, almost 60%, or 372,000, entered the skilled migration system.”[1]

The government tells us that migration must remain extremely high to fill shortages in skills in our country. But then they bring in an oversupply of certain skills, and an oversupply of low-skilled workers. Why would this be the case?

Because the goal of immigration is not to fill skills shortages. The goal of a policy is what it achieves, remember that. What does our immigration policy achieve? Social change, at a massive level. This is happening all across the West, governments are desperately trying to change their populations at a rate never before seen. But it also suppresses wages, and inflates the cost of living.

Westerners lived once in the most cohesive and wealthiest per capita societies in the world. Both these things are changing via immigration at this record speed. When the government tells you it is trying to fill skill shortages while doing no such thing, you realize that you are being lied to, whilst also being robbed.

The house you could not afford to buy. This is why.

That house you could not rent. This is why.

That job you did not get, that was given to someone from another country, who barely speaks English. This is why.

This is the goal, not a side effect, the actual goal. The goal is suppression of our way of life, because it was too independent and influential. And social change so that they can have the population they prefer. Populations that coincidentally come from societies that do not have the history of the levels of freedom that we have enjoyed in the West. Our governments do not serve our interests. This is certain. Economists have the raw data, we see the effects in our everyday lives.  

List of References

[1] Leith Van Olsen, 2025, https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2025/03/australian-economy-oversupplied-with-low-skilled-workers/

Saturday, 22 March 2025

What is the Most Violent Ideology?

 




What is the most violent ideology of the 20th century?

If you were to ask people this question without doubt the two most common answers many people would give is either Nazism or Communism. Nazism is officially held responsible for 17 million deaths in its short rise to power before and during World War 2.[1] This is a significant amount of people, but it pales in comparison to Communism,

“According to a disturbingly pleasant graphic from Information is Beautiful entitled simply 20th Century Death, communism was the leading ideological cause of death between 1900 and 2000. The 94 million that perished in China, the Soviet Union, North Korea, Afghanistan, and Eastern Europe easily (and tragically) trump the 28 million that died under fascist regimes during the same period.”[2]

So, Communism is responsible for 94 million deaths. Nazism is responsible for 17 million, and fascism as a whole is responsible for 28 million. Presumably this is including the numbers attributed to the Nazis and other similar ideologies. But Communism is clearly the more deadly ideology of the two.  

In fact, “During the century measured, more people died as a result of communism than from homicide (58 million) and genocide (30 million) put together. The combined death tolls of WWI (37 million) and WWII (66 million) exceed communism's total by only 9 million.”[3] This is a phenomenal fact, is it not? The two worst wars in our history were only slightly more deadly than Communism as a whole. And, Communism had its part to play in both those wars, so there is a bit of murkiness here where to actually line up the totals. Either way though, people are quite correct to see these two ideologies as the causes of some of the worst bursts of violence in the 20th century.

But they are not even close to the most violent ideology of the 20th century. There is one that leaves these others in its dust and continues to achieve a number of deaths at a rate of almost an entire World War 2 each year. That ideology is feminism and its corollary, abortion. Since the 1973 supreme court decision of Roe v. Wade in the United States alone, 63 million babies have been aborted, at a rate of around 1 million children a year.[4] That is just in the United States. The feminists which pushed hard for the passing of liberalized abortion laws in the United States are responsible for a death toll nearly as large as World War 2. That is in just one country.

As I am writing this, March 22nd 2025, according to Worldometer already this year there have been 9,973,890 abortions and counting.[5] By the time you read this the number will have increased by a large margin. The Worldometer website notes,

“The data on abortions displayed on the Worldometer’s counter is based on the latest estimates on worldwide abortions published by various sources, including the World Health Organization (WHO). According to WHO, every year in the world there are around 73 million induced abortions. This corresponds to approximately 200,000 abortions per day.[6]

73 million abortions a year worldwide! 73 million! Read that again, 73 million! That is more deaths than World War 2, every year! According to the Life Institute website, worldwide,

“More than 1.5 BILLION babies have been aborted worldwide in the past 50 years.[i]

An estimated 50 million abortions are carried out throughout the world every year.[ii]

One in five pregnancies worldwide end in abortion.[iii]"[7]

This estimate reduces the yearly death count to 50 million, but that is still a staggering amount. And this number shows no movement downwards. It continues to add more deaths each year.

Nazism was stamped out. Oh, people like to say it still exists, but wherever they say it does, it is but a shadow of the original version. A ghost that people march out to win political arguments. Communism still has a foothold in the world, but it has quietened down markedly since its heyday of blood. Feminism and one of its cornerstones, abortion, are riding a wave of power across the western world, that has killed over a billion children and it continues to march. And it has its bloody claws on the necks of unborn children in many parts of the developing world as well.

For instance, the Feminism Project notes on their website that,

“The healthcare landscape has similarly benefited from feminist advocacy. Women’s health issues, historically sidelined within both medical literature and healthcare policies, gained traction through the efforts of feminist movements. For example, reproductive rights and maternal health have become focal points in feminist agendas across Africa. Activists and organizations tirelessly campaign for policy changes that prioritize women’s health, offering comprehensive and culturally sensitive reproductive healthcare services. Such strides ensure that women’s voices are not merely heard but incorporated into the frameworks of health governance, addressing unique challenges women face.”[8]

When you hear feminists talking about reproductive rights, you know they are referring in large part to abortion. In fact, under some US presidents USAID money was used to aid this purpose,

“Promoting abortion was at least as high a priority for USAID as providing food or building basic infrastructure in developing countries with Joe Biden in the White House. This is clear from an analysis of the agency's use of funds, which, in 2022 alone, spent more than $607 million on projects related to reproductive health around the world.

The Biden administration generously funded USAID's family planning and reproductive health programs during its tenure to spread its abortion policies across the globe. In 2022 alone, the agency budgeted $607.5 million for these purposes, with African countries being the biggest recipients of this money through funding for abortion programs and organizations.

Biden and Obama pioneer use of foreign aid funds to finance abortions

This was not something he did on the sly. As soon as he got to the White House, Biden ignored Ronald Reagan's "Mexico City Rule" that prohibited a single dollar of U.S. foreign aid from going to nonprofit organizations that promote abortion or provide abortion services. Biden was the second president to cancel this rule. The first was Barack Obama, and Trump reinstated it during his first term.”[9]

Not content with the high death toll in western countries, the feminist ideologues have long continued to seek to encourage their ideology to flourish around the world, even in societies we would not think of as feminist. They continue to spread their ideas to women wherever they can.

Abortion is not the only evil that feminism has pushed avidly on the world. But it is the most violent, launching feminism ahead of any other violent ideology the world has seen. This might be a confronting truth, but it is without question the truth.

Yes, I know the 19th century feminists argued against abortion on occasion. Yes, I know that abortion existed long before feminism as an ideology. These facts are without dispute. But what is also without dispute is that 20th century feminism, and its granddaughters in the 21st century, have tied their ideology deeply to abortion access,

“The topic of abortions is a focal point in feminist theories…Abortions are a fundamentally feminist topic, as they touch on bodily autonomy, sex and sexuality, private versus public sphere…

…Feminism is a large school of thought that touches on every aspect of life. It seeks not only to explain the patriarchal reasons behind the continued criminalization of abortions, but also the unfair societal expectations of people with uteruses, and how we can move towards a more equal, rights-based society.”[10]

Abortion is considered almost universally among feminists to be a necessity for allowing women to function equally with men in this “patriarchal” world. It is a pillar of their ideologies, or as this feminist notes, it is a focal point. Other forms of contraception are part of this ideology too, but abortion is the goal keeper to assure feminists their independence from their biology if the other things fail.

For this reason alone, feminism should be opposed. We need no other reason. The intrinsic connection between abortion and feminism makes feminism the most violent ideology of the 20th century and the reigning holder of this title today. It is, therefore, truly a cancer on society that is willing to sacrifice innocent children in the quest for the elusive equality that both male and female feminists seek to achieve. They chase a phantom at the cost of innocent lives. 

Feminism, therefore, must be opposed by all moral and right thinkers in the world. I have dedicated much of my life to advocating against feminism and for seeking to teach people about its unbiblical origins, its negative effect on both men and women, and also its list of evil consequences. Feminism is a cause of many great evils in western societies, and just like cancer in the body, it has damaging and fatal flow on effects for the whole nation. We must speak against this ideology, for the sakes of the good of all, but especially the victims of abortion; helpless children. Warn people about the damage this ideology has done to our societies.

If you have sons and daughters, this starts in the home. Then it this needs to be trumpeted throughout the Church. And, by the mercy of God, may the Church be salt and light on this issue for the nations in which we live.

List of References



[3] Ibid.