Israel not Just for Israelites

 

"Israel has always been a Jewish land back into ancient times, not a land for the Gentiles." You have heard this claim from many different sources. But actual ancient times show us this:

"But there will be no gloom for her who was in anguish. In the former time he brought into contempt the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the latter time he has made glorious the way of the sea, the land beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the nations." (Isaiah 9:1; emphasis added).

John N. Oswalt says about this region in his commentary on Isaiah,

“Galilee of the Gentiles. The area between the Sea of Chinnereth and the Mediterranean north of the Jezreel Valley had always been something of a melting pot, with Hebrews, Canaanites, Arameans, Hittites, and Mesopotamians all contributing to the mix. It was in this region, through the various inland powers westward and southward toward the seacoast, that Israel commonly encountered the rest of the world (hence the name). But the area was destined to see an even more intense mixing after 735, for this was the first part of Israel to be stripped away by Tiglath-pileser, with its inhabitants resettled in Mesopotamia and new settler from the area brought in. The humbling of Israel had begun. She had thought the land was hers. Now she was to begin to see that she was only a tenant by the permission of the true landlord.”[1]

There is no doubt that God promised the land of Canaan to the descendants of Abraham. To deny this is to deny Scripture. But it was always a conditional stewardship, not an ownership, and it was a stewardship for a purpose.

Moses tells the Israelites in Leviticus 25:23-34, “23 The land shall not be sold in perpetuity, for the land is mine. For you are strangers and sojourners with me. 24 And in all the country you possess, you shall allow a redemption of the land.” The Israelites were no more owners of Israel than Denethor was the owner of the throne room of Gondor. He was simply meant to steward it well until the true owner, the king came. They were meant to steward it for the purposes of mission.  

As Isaiah says,

“2 The people who walked in darkness
    have seen a great light;
those who dwelt in a land of deep darkness,
    on them has light shone.
3 You have multiplied the nation;
    you have increased its joy;
they rejoice before you
    as with joy at the harvest,
    as they are glad when they divide the spoil.
4 For the yoke of his burden,
    and the staff for his shoulder,
    the rod of his oppressor,
    you have broken as on the day of Midian.
5 For every boot of the tramping warrior in battle tumult
    and every garment rolled in blood
    will be burned as fuel for the fire.
6 For to us a child is born,
    to us a son is given;
and the government shall be upon his shoulder,
    and his name shall be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
    Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
7 Of the increase of his government and of peace
    there will be no end,
on the throne of David and over his kingdom,
    to establish it and to uphold it
with justice and with righteousness
    from this time forth and forevermore.
The zeal of the Lord of hosts will do this.”

The land of Israel was meant to be a light, and this light was meant to attract the gentiles, just as the Queen of Sheba was attracted to Solomon’s reign. The Hebrews were never meant to create an Israeli state just for their own purposes of owning their own land, though this is itself a good purpose. God's intention was for them to be a nation of priests to the nations (Exodus 19:1-5).

In other words, Israel was always meant to be a land that attracted Gentiles to the light, ultimately that light is Jesus, as Matthew the Apostle writes,  

“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. 4:12-16).

So we can see here how both Jews and Gentiles have both always had a claim on the land, both by presence and promise. Presence because the Gentiles were always there and possession is 9/10’s of the law, as they say. But even more importantly by promise that the light of Israel was for them as well. How could Israel reject Gentiles that wanted to come to the light of God and dwell in the land of that light?

You can take proof-texts out of books like Genesis that the land is just for the physical descendants of Abraham’s kids through the line of Isaac and Jacob. But to do so forgets that the purpose of giving the land was always to open the gates to believing gentiles:

“1 The word that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem.

2 It shall come to pass in the latter days
    that the mountain of the house of the Lord
shall be established as the highest of the mountains,
    and shall be lifted up above the hills;
and all the nations shall flow to it,
3     and many peoples shall come, and say:
“Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord,
    to the house of the God of Jacob,
that he may teach us his ways
    and that we may walk in his paths.”
For out of Zion shall go forth the law,
    and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.
4 He shall judge between the nations,
    and shall decide disputes for many peoples;
and they shall beat their swords into plowshares,
    and their spears into pruning hooks;
nation shall not lift up sword against nation,
    neither shall they learn war anymore” (Isaiah 2:1-4)

It is, therefore, no an accident that Jesus had his most fruitful ministry in "Galilee of the Nations". The light of Israel was always meant to be for the Gentiles. God made sure that Israel always had Gentiles in their neighbourhood to help them fulfil this role. This is of course fulfilled in the New Israel, the Church. But for those who think that the land of Israel is just for Jews, or just the 12 tribes born of Jacob, the very scriptures you look to make this case do not actually make this case. To make Israel just for physical Israelites is to make certain that Israel fails in its purpose to be a light to the nations. Which I think you could say is conclusively the case with modern Israel.

List of References

---

[1] John N. Oswalt, 1986, The Book of Isaiah Chapters 1-39, pp.239-240.

Your Children Are Being Mistaught, Deliberately

 

Why is Philosophy not taught to children in school? Philosophy teaches children that everyone is subject to seeing the world through a worldview, that those in power always seek to dominate the worldview of those under them, and that some worldviews are inherently destructive and dangerous...

...Oh, I think I answered my own question there.

Not everyone will be a philosopher, that is for certain. But everyone has a philosophy of life and everyone is subject to the exposure of the philosophies of others. Therefore, everyone should be taught the basic skills of philosophical self defence. I don’t think a strong wave of transgender kids or the rapid rise of many other social ills would be possible if people were properly taught to judge and weigh up ideas well.

I know many people think philosophy is the domain of ivory tower academics, I once believed that too. But it is very clear that everyone should be versed in how to think about this world to one degree or another, just like everyone should be taught to run, or to read, or basic computer skills. Otherwise people will be, and often actually are, helpless to the whims of the elites of society.  

Napoleon I and Napoleon III understood the danger of teaching kids philosophy...to their own abuses of power:

"The programmes were stripped almost completely of all those studies which might tend to create or develop the critical spirit: philosophy and history, etc."[i]

"History and philosophy were discouraged as studies; they might lead to dangerous political discussions and "discontent."[ii]

At the same time that Napoleon was doing this in Britain and the U.S. children were learning philosophy and both those civilisations were about to reach the peak of their brilliance that would flow on into the next century.  

Australians are taught things like Philosophy and History will be of no use to them...I wonder why we have in large part have been taught this? When the greats of history almost always were well versed in both, and saw their great application to improving the lives of their fellow man. Could it be that the greats of history also saw through the lies their society believed, asked uncomfortable questions and came to unauthorized conclusions? I suggest that is precisely the case. If every school child were taught Aristotle in high-school it is not likely our society would be suffering many of the ill-advised policies that an obsession with equality causes today. That would be just one of many likely positive effects. 

Some people are naturally good thinkers. Most people need to be trained to think. A lot of people can be trained to think, not everyone, but many people can be. Of course, it is better for corrupt leaders if people only think what they want them to think…or don't think at all...right...

List of References

---

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

[ii] Ibid, p. 409.

Aurelius and Oppostion

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of References

---

[1] https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/290880-begin-each-day-by-telling-yourself-today-i-shall-be

State Atheism Camps

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of References

---

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

Conscription

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of References

---

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

[2] Joe Glenton, 2024, "Conscription in the UK? Gen Z are too clever to touch it with a barge pole," Metro https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/conscription-in-the-uk-gen-z-are-too-clever-to-touch-it-with-a-barge-pole/ar-BB1hhXvB?ocid=msedgntp&pc=NMTS&cvid=8817dab71d1d420eb5be0e9d240d0890&ei=20

[3] Ibid.

The Hubris of our Human Anger

 

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

The tailor in heaven

A fairy tale by the Brothers Grimm

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

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

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

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

List of References

---

[1] https://www.grimmstories.com/en/grimm_fairy-tales/the_tailor_in_heaven

The Privileged Sex – Women and Crime

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

As former New York governor Mario Cuomo, the father of current New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, said when he decided to pardon a woman who shot her estranged husband after driving several hundred miles, when it comes to women who kills “there are no rules.” In a single act of clemency in 1990, the governor of Ohio, Richard Celeste, pardoned no fewer than 27 women convicted of murdering their husbands. The leniency exercised toward women who have killed their relatives may explain why 15.9 percent of imprisoned female killers, but only 9.6 percent of male ones, are where they are for that offense. It may also explain why adult women are 24 percent more likely to kill their children than are men, and why under-age women are 32 percent more likely to kill relatives, small children included, than are under-age men.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

List of References

---

[1] Men Going Their Own Way

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

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

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

[5] Ibid, pp. 155-160.

[6] Ibid, p. 160.

[7] Ibid, p. 287.